\,^^ :'^^^^ %/ :gM-' %<^ ' 



■^ ' • • • \ * -<._> - -• .• ^ 






.0^ 



V.S^ 






■^-^^0-^ 









^.•-•i^-'V \-^-/ V-^'-'^ 






■^<; 



^-j 




SLAYEEY EXAMIIED 



IN THE 



LIGHT OF THE BIBLE. 



BY LTJTHER LEE. 



SYRACUSE, N. Y.: 

■WESLEY AN' METUOniST COOK ROOM, 

60 South Salina Street. 
1855. 



P 11 E F A C E 



The subject discussed in the folhjwint^ pag-cs has occu- 
pied a lai-'i-c share of public attention for tiie last twenty 
years. 'I'his attentipn has been deepeninjii-, aud becoiiiiug 
more <;cueral, and is slill proq-ressing', am) the writer be- 
lieves it will advance until the eye of the nation will be 
fixed upon the greai subject of human rights. Slavery 
is so great and glaring a wrong, as to be able to live, 
only by diverting attention, or by perverting the Scrip- 
tures, conscience, and common sense. Let the eye of the 
Dation become lixed on the system of American Slavery, 
auJ let its merits be freely examined in the light of tho 
Scriptures, and let the sacred volume be disabused of the 
pro-slavery glasses which have blurred its pages, that its 
true light may be evolved, and Slavery will die for want 
of moral darkness, the only elenient in whith it can live. 

AVith all hunest believers in the Christian Religion, 
the Scriptures are the " higl»tr law," the only authorita- 
tive standard of right anti wrong, and with them a 
successful appeal tu the Bible is conclusive, the end of all 
controversy. Such an appeal is attempted in the follow- 
ing pages, with what succe.>^s the reader must judge. 

If the appeal is successful, two ends will be accom- 
plished. First, the absolute authority of the Scriptures 
will be brought to bear against Slavery, in the minds of 
all those who regard them iu the light of a Revelation 
uf the will of God. Secondly, the Scriptures will be 
vindicated against the charge of sanctioning the terrible 
system of American Slavery. It is a fact well under- 
stood that many are fast loosing their confidence in the 
Scriptures, upon the assuujption that they justify Sla- 
very. 'I'o vindif^ate the Bible from such a charge, and 
to stop the tide of infulelity arising from this source, is 
an object worthier of higher gifts than those displayed in 
the following ]»ag^^s, yet th(^ Author hopes his little vol- 
ume may be found among the intluences which shall has- 
ten the overthrow of human bondage. AVith these 
views and his earnest prayers for tiie triumph of truth, 
he submits his work to the judgment of the candid 
reader. 

THE AUTHOR. 



SLAVERY EXAMINED 



SECTION I 



SIN INHERENT IN SLAVERY. 

It is important to define the question to be 
discussed before opening the argument. It 
does not follow that slavery is right because 
one man may rightfully be another man's 
servant. 

Limited servitude or such as pertains to 
children in their m,inority, and persons under 
various limited contracts and obligations, is 
not meant in the following Treatise. It is 
admitted that one person may rightfully owe 
service to another person under various cir- 
cumstances. 

By slavery is meant, the system which re- 
duces man to a chattel, and buys and sells 
him, and subjects him to the liabilities of oth- 
er property, daiming the same right of prop- 
erty in the offspring by virtue of the right 
previously asserted to the parent. This is 
the system of American slavery, and against 
it and all other slavery involving the same 
principles, the following arguments are_^di- 
rected. 

Slavery consisting in the right of property 
in man, with the usual incidents of that right 
must be morally wrong and sin in itself, for 
the followino- reasons. 



SLAVERY : A SIX AGAINST GOI>. 



ARGUMENT FIRST 



It is ixconsistent with man's relation to 
God, and the obligations growing out 
of that relation. 

"■ : Dr. Payne, in his " Elements of Moral 
Science," says : — 

" Yirtuc as it rco-ards man, is tlie confor- 
mity or harmony of his affections and actions 
with the various relations in wliich he has 
been placed — of which conformity the per- 
fect intellect of God, guided in its exercise 
by his infinitely holy nature, is the only infal- 
lible judge. '^ 

if this be a correct definition of virtue, 
and wc believe it is ; it follows, that man 
cannot ri^ahtfuUy sustain two relations at the 
same tiuKi, with both of which his affections 
an^ actions cannot harmonize ; which is the 
cq.<e with the relation that all men sustain to 
God, and the relation to property, to man 
with its usual inciiients. Tiie relations wc 
sustain to God are various. He is our Cre- 
ator, our Preserver, our Benefactor — lie is 
the framer of our bodies and the Father of 
our spirit:*, and he js our Governor. 

Th'j (piotatiou from Dr. Payne asserts that 
God is the judge of the conformity of nnin's 
affections ancl actions to his relations, and 
thisjudginent God has expressed in the tirst 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 5 

great commandment, which reads as fol- 
lows : — 

" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy mind, and with all thy strength." 
This commandment clearly lays such a claim 
to the affections of the heart, and demands 
such an entire devotion of the soul {Psukee 
Life) as gives tone to, and controls the ac- 
tions ; it therefore contains the foundation 
of absolute obedience to God. This is seen 
in the expression, " with all thy strength." 
This requires a consecration of the physical 
powers in obedience to God, under the con- 
trol of the affections of the heart. ► 

There is but one question more to settle, 
which is, can these affections and actions ex- 
ist in the same heart and life, at the same 
time with those affections and actions which 
are consonant with the relation of a piece of 
property to its owner, a personal chattel to 
a chattel holder ? Slavery may say what it 
pleases ; common sense says no. 

To be under obligation to obey God, there 
must exist the right and power of devoting 
our lives to God, for there can be no obli- 
gation where there is not hothright smd poioer 
to respond to that obligation. But the slave, 
who is the property of man, has not and 
cannot have the power of devoting his life to 
God, because his life is not at his own dis- 
posal, according to the dictates of his own 
understanding of right ; he cannot do what 
God requires, but must do what nie?i require, 
and wicked men too, who fear not God and 
regard not his law. Should it be said that 



6 SLAVKIIV : A SIX ACAIN'ST GCtli. 

slave owners do not interfere with the slave's 
rij^ht to ©bey God, and liberty of con- 
science, every one must know that such 
an assumption would be false, for the exten- 
sion of the riirht to slaves, to obey God, as 
free men profcssin": the reli<rion of the ]>ible 
deem it tlieir duty to obey God, would over- 
throw the system of slavery. 

Further, if it were admitted that slave 
owners grant their slaves the privilege of 
obeying God, it would not relieve the diffi- 
culty, ibr it would still follow that the sys- 
tem of property in man, takes away from the 
human chattel the right to obey God, and 
puts it into the hand of the owner, who has 
the power to close up before the chattelized 
traveller to eternity, the path of obedience 
and with authority direct his footsteps in the 
way of sin and dcatli. Man cannot sustain 
the relation of pro])erty to man, without an 
infraction of the relation that he sustains to 
God, and of the rights and powers essential 
to the conformity of his alTections and actions 
to this relation, hence, the 7'ight of i)roperty 
in man cannot exist. 

The assumption of the relation of a chat- 
tel holder to a subject of God's moral gov- 
ernment, is to step in between such subject 
and God, and disannul man's relation to his 
Maker, and absolve him from liis allegiance 
to Jehovah's throne. Can this be right? 
Does the Bible sanction such a principle, 
beaming as it does with the mind of Ilim 
who declares himself to be a jealousGod ; 
flashing with the lightnings of his dis- 
])leasure, and speaking in the thunder tones 



SLAVERY : A SIN' AGAIXST GOD. T 

of his wrath against all who turn away from 
the claims of his law to acknowledge any 
other authority, to serve any other God or 
bow down to the likeness of any thing ia 
heaven, earth or hell ? It cannot be. 



ARGUMENT SECOND: 



bLAVERY CONFLICTS WITH VARIOUS SPECIFIC DUTIES 

WHICH THE Bible requires of all men. 

Dr. Paley, in his moral philosophy, lays 
down the following rule : 

" A state of happiness is not to be expect- 
ed by those who reserve to themselves the ha- 
bitual practice of any one sin, or the neglect 
of any one known duty." 

If then it can be shown that a state of 
slavery docs interfere with a single duty to 
God, or involves its subjects in the necessity 
of violating one single precept of the gospel 
it will follow that it is and must remain 
wrong under all circumstances and forever. 

It is the duty of all intelligent beings to use 
all the means within their reach to acquire a 
knowledge of God and his will. To remain 
ignorant of God and of his will concerning 
us through neglect of the means within our 
reach, is of itself a sin of the darkest shade. 
But from what source is the knowledge of 
God to be derived ? The answer is plain, 



8 SLAVERY : A SIX A(7AIXST GOD. 

the Scriptures. "To the law and the testi- 
mony ; if tliey speak not according to this 
word it is because there is no light in them.'^ 

It is clear that if the Scriptures are an ex- 
pression of the mind of God, and have been 
inspired by his spirit, all must possess a com- 
mon right of direct access to this fountain of 
moral light. This none will deny but the 
Pope and his menials. With this accords 
the practice of all Protestants ; whenever 
they establish missions in any part of the 
world among the heathen, they put the Bible 
into their hands so soon as they can speak 
its language, or so soon as it can be transla- 
ted into their own language. The only ex- 
ception is found in the act of withholding 
the scriptures from the slaves of our own 
country, who might be taught to read them 
with far greater facility. 

But God has made it our duty to know 
him, and to know him through this medium. 

Luke xvi. 29. " They have Moses and 
the prophets ; let them hear them." 

John v. 39. " Search the scriptcres, for 
in them ye think he have eternal life." 

Acts xvii. 11. " These were more no- 
ble than those in Thessalonica, in that they 
received the word with all readiness of mind, 
and searched the scri})tures daily, whether 
these things were so.'' 

W. M. Discipline — " It is expected of all 
who desire to continue in these societies, 
that they should continue to evidence their 
desire ot salvation by searching the scrip- 
tures. All this we know his spirit writes 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. t) 

on truly awakened hearts. All which we 
are taught of God to observe." 

The same principle is contained in the 
creed, written or unwritten, of every Protes- 
tant religious sect on earth ; and every Pro- 
testant sect condemn the Romanists for with- 
holding the scriptures from the people ; and 
if it be wrong to withhold the scriptures, 
slavery cannot be right. 

The right and duty of all men to possess 
themselves of the scriptures and to read and 
study the same being established, it only re- 
mains to show that slavery is of necessity 
and forever inimical to this right and duty ; 
taking aAvay the one, and nullifying the oth- 
er. The right of property in man cannot 
exist co-ordinate with the right and obliga- 
tion to ' search the scriptures.' 

1. The right and obligation to search the 
scriptures necessarily includes the right of ac- 
quiring property, first in money or money's 
value with which to procure the scriptures to 
be read : and secondly, in the scriptures them- 
selves. But property cannot acquire prop- 
erty ; the very idea of the right of property 
in any thing, supposes an equal right of pro- 
perity in all productions and increase or in- 
come of such property; so that property can- 
not acquire property in its own right and for 
itself. If property increases or gathers oth- 
er property around it, such increase does not 
belong to the property that produces or 
acquires it, but to the owner of the 
property. If this be denied, it will fol- 
low that the productions of the slaves do not 
belong to the slave owner but the slave him- 



11) S .AVKHY : A SIN AGAIN'.ST GOP. 

self, \^hich will overthrow the whole system 
of slavery. This view shows that the slave, 
as propertv, cannot possess, in his own right, 
a Bible or" the value of a Bible in any form, 
and therefore, the command of God to 'search 
the scriptui;es,' and the assumed right of i)ro- 
perty in man, are totally and irreconcilably 
opposed to each other, so that while God re- 
quires all men to search the scriptures, no 
man can rightfully he reduced to a chattel. 
With this agrees the law of slavery which 
says that a slave " can do nothing, possess 
no'thing, nor acquire anything but what must 
belong to their master." If a Bible should 
be given to a slave, so as to alienate the right 
of the giver in favor of the slave, the right 
to the Bible would not lodge with the slave, 
but pass over him and vest itself with the 
master, and this is not only by law but in 
the very philosophy of tlie right of proper- 
ty. 

" 2. The right and obligation to search the 
scriptures includes the right to devote sufli- 
cient time to the pursuit of religious know- 
ledge. But the right of ]n'operty in a man 
includes the right to monopolize and dispose 
of his whole time, so that he cannot })Ossesa 
the right of devoting his time or any part of 
it to the study of the scriptures, from which 
it follows again that the right of slavery is 
at war with the duties which God has com- 
manded. If tlie advocate of slavery will at- 
tempt to evade the force of this, by denying 
that the right of property in man includes 
the riglit to control the time of such proi)er- 
tv, he will ruin his own cause; for if the 



'.' ? 



slavery: a sin against god. 11 

slaveholder has not a right to say how the 
slave shall improve his time, his right of 
property in him will not be worth contend- 
ing about. If the right of property in man 
includes the right of controling his time, it 
conflicts with duties which God requires and 
must be wrong ; and if it does not give the 
master the right to control the time of the 
slave, the whole practical system of slavery 
is a violation of right. 

In showing that slavery conflicts with cer- 
tain specified duties, it is proper to notice 
the duty of publicly worshipping God. On 
this point we will quote but one text. 

Heb. X. 25. '* Not forsaking the assem- 
bling of yourselves together, as the manner 
of some is." This text clearly teaches the 
duty of meeting together in Christian assem- 
blies for religious purposes, while slavery 
declares that the right of slaves so to assem- 
ble cannot be admitted with safety to the 
system. 

To conclude this argument, we say that to 
grant the slaves the simple right of obeying 
the Gospel, by attending to all its devotional 
and social duties as they are commanded and 
understood by Christians genercdly, would over- 
throw the entire system. To give them the 
Scriptures to be read according to the dic- 
tates of their own consciences, and to allow 
them the privilege of selecting their own min- 
isters froniAvhose lips they choose to hear the 
words of life, which is the inalienable right 
of all Christians, would come so near to the 
abolition of slavery as to leave but little to 
be done to complete it. The right of proper- 



12 slavery: a j^in a(;ai\st god. 

ty in man cannot exist without taking away 
the right of doing the duties and enjoying the 
privileges of the Gospel, and therefore the 
right of property in man cannot exist as a 
right, but must be wrong, whenever assumed. 



ARGUMENT THIRD: 



Slavery conflicts vmu those social re- 
lations AND DUTIES WHICH NOT ONLY SPRING FROM 
OUR SOCIAL NATL'KE, BUT WHICH GoD HAS ALSO EN- 
JOINED BY POSITIVE ENACTMENT. 

Man is a social being, and has received a 
social nature from tlie hand which formed 
him; which seeks intercourse, sympathy, and 
reciprocal enjoyments from kindred spirits. 
The various relations into whicli we are 
thrown by the current of our social nature, 
have been provided for by God in his word, 
where he has prescribed tlie circumstances, 
conditions and obligations of our social and 
domestic relations, and has thrown around 
them the protection of his law. 

We will commence with the institution of 
marriage. This of course was ])rovided for 
by the iiand of God when he originally cre- 
ated man, and is the first institution in the 
chain of social relations ; first in the order 
of nature, and first in the order of the posi- 
tive institutions of the divine law. Matt. 
xix.4--G. 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 13 

" Have ye not read that he which made 
them at the beginning, made them male and 
female, and said. For this cause shall a man 
leave father and mother, and shall cleave to 
his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh ? 
Wherefore they are no more twain but one 
flesh? what therefore God hath joined to- 
gether let no man put asunder." 

Heb. xiii. " Marriage is honorable in all, 
and the bed undefiled ; but whoremongers 
and adulterers God will judge." 

On these texts it may be remarked, that 
God obviously designed marriage for all na- 
tions, races and classes of men. To say that 
God does not require marriage on the part 
of the African race, would be to say that he 
designs the extinction of the race, for all 
s-uch perpetuation of the race out of wedlock 
is condemned and denounced by God him- 
self. We are now prepared to show where- 
in slavery conflicts with the institution, and 
rights and obligations of marriage. 

1. The right of property in man is incon- 
sistent with the rights of the parties who 
lawfully enter into the marriage relation. 

The husband has a monopoly of right in 
his wife. A wife belongs to her husband, 
in a sense which renders it impossible that 
she should be the property of another at the 
same time ; if she is the wife of one, she 
cannot be the property of another ; if she is 
the property of one she cannot be the wife of 
another. It is impossible from the nature of 
the two things that a woman should hold 
out the attributes of a wife to one man, and 
the attributes of property to another, at the 



14 SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST fiOD. 

same time. The luisband has an exclusive 
riij^ht in his wife, and the owner has an ex- 
clusive right in his property ; hence, a wo- 
man cannot sustain the relation of a wife to 
one man, and the relation of property to an- 
other. The husband has not only an exclu- 
sive claim to the affections of her heart, but 
also to her time and attention ; what power 
she possesses to promote the ha])piness of an- 
other belongs to liim, and she lias, as a wife, 
no right to seek the happiness of others be- 
yond what is consistent with his happiness ; 
her happiness should be his and'his should be 
hers ; they are partners in both joy and sor- 
row ; " they are no more twain but one flesh." 
The right of property includes the right of 
controlling, using, and disposing of such 
property for the promotion of the happiness 
of the owner ; hence, two persons cannot 
possess, the one the rights of a husband and 
the other tlie rights of i)ropcrty in the same 
woman at tlie same time. In the same man- 
ner the rights of the wife forever forbid the 
right of property in the husband. The man 
is not alone in securing rights to himself 
when he enters into the marriage relation ; 
corresponding to liis riglits are the rights of 
the wife ; if they are not in every res])ect 
the same, tliey are nevertheless equal in num- 
ber and importance. The husband is bound 
no less to devote liimself for the promotion 
of the happiness of the wife than she is to 
promote his happiness. This right of the 
wife to tlie love, the protection, the support, 
and entire devotecbiess of the husband to 
])romote lier ha]>pinessmust forever prechide 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAIXST GOD. 15 

the right of property to such husband vest- 
ing itself in the hands of another. 

2. The right of property in man is incon- 
sistent with the obligations resting upon the 
parties to the marriage relations. Rights 
and obligations are always reciprocal; hence, 
in treating of the rights of the parties, the 
corresponding obligations have been implied, 
but we wish to bring them out a little more 
distinctly. The rig-ht of the husband to thfi; 
due regard and proper submission of the 
wife, involves an obligation on her part to 
render these things ; the right of the wife to 
the love and protection of the husband, in- 
volves an obligation on his part to love and 
protect her. We will now present a few 
plain declarations of scripture on this sub- 
ject, and see how effectually they overthrow 
the assumed right of property in man. 

1 Cor. vii. 2. " Nevertheless, to avoid for 
nication, let every man have his own wife, 
and let every woman have her own hus- 
band." 

The system of property in man, making 
them personal chattels, to be bought and 
sold in the market, cannot be reconciled 
with the above text. To let every man have 
his own wife, and every woman her own hus- 
band, in the apostle's sense, would overthrow 
the whole system of slavery. 

Eph. V. 21. " Wives submit yourselves 
unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 

23. For the husband is the head of the 
wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: 
and he is the Saviour of the body." 

Can wives, who are the personal chattels 



16 SLAVKKY : A SIN' ACiAINST UOD. 

of men not their Imsbands, comply with the 
above text ? When the husband is sent to 
one market and the wife to another, can the 
wife obey the scriptures ? Can the wife who 
is in the power, the absolute power of a man 
who is not her husband, and who can enforce 
his will in all things Avithout let or hindrance 
by flattery, bribes, strength, prisons, whips 
and tortures ; can such a wife submit herself 
tp her husband as unto the Lord ? and can a 
husband, who is under the same absolute con- 
trol of another, be the head of such a wife, 
as Christ is the head of the church ? An- 
swer, common sense ! 

1 Cor. vii. 10. " And unto the married 
I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not 
the wife depart from her husband V 

Is it consistent with this text for one man 
to sell another man's wife, or to buy another 
man's wife, and drive her off in chains, to 
see her husband no more ? It cannot l)e. If 
the wife has not a rirht to depart, then no 
other person can ha\ c a right to force her to 
depart. No person can have a right to com- 
pel another to do what such person has not 
a right to do without being compelled. A 
wife has no power to dei)art from her hus- 
band, and therefore no person can have a 
right to sell her, to buy and drive her away 
from her husband ; and hence the right of 
property in husbands and wives cannot ex- 
ist. 

Eph. V. 28. " So ought men to love their 
wives as their own bodies. He that loveth 
his wife loveth himself. 

20. For no man ever vet hated liis own 



SLAVERY : A SIX AGAINST GOD. 17 

flesh ; but nourishetli and cherisheth it, even 
as the Lord the church ?" 

1 Peter iii. 7. " Likewise, ye husbands, 
dwell with them according to knowledge, 
giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weak- 
er vessel, and as being heirs together of the 
grace of life ; that your prayers be not hin- 
dered.'' 

How can a man, who may be sold and driv- 
en away at any moment, be under obligation 
to dwell with his wife ? We will not multi- 
ply quotations or remarks ; enough has been 
said to show that slavery and the marriage 
institution cannot exist together. Slavery 
takes away the power of the wife to preserve 
her own purity, and this is true of married 
and unmarried females. The fe.nale that is 
made an article of property, cannot call her 
purity her own ; it may be taken from her at 
the pleasure of her owner. He may violate 
her at pleasure, and she has neither the right 
or the power to resist. He may tie her up 
with cords ; he may confine her in any way 
he pleases ; he may apply the lash to her 
cringing back to any extent he pleases ; and 
all this he may do before the face of the man 
she may call her husband, and no one, bond 
or free, has any right to interfere ; and in so 
doing he violates no law but the law of God, 
with which slavery has nothing to do more 
than to set it at nought. 

All this follows of necessity, from the ad- 
mission of the right of property in human 
beings. Note, the argument is not that all 
slaveholders actually commit these wrongs 
on the marriage institution and on female 



1 8 ?I,\VF.RY : A SIN AOAIXST COD. 

purity, V)ut the ari^umcnt is tliat tlie pystcm 
of slavery gives every slaveholder tlie power 
to do it at pleasure, and with ])erfect impu- 
nity ; and that this is inseparable from the 
system itself; and that the system which 
lays the heaven ordained institution of mar- 
riage, aid heaven-protected female virtue in 
the dust, helpless at the feet of the spoiler, 
for the riot and triumph of the baser pas- 
sions of human nature, cannot be right, but 
must be wrong now and forever. 

To settle the question, we say that matri- 
mony exists among slaves or it does not. — 
The one or the other of these positions must 
be true. Which is true, we care not, so far 
as this argument is concerned. 1. If matri- 
mony does exist in moral right among slaves, 
the parties are joined together ])y God, and 
Christ says, '' what God hath joined togeth- 
er, let not man put asunder.'' J>ut slavery 
does sunder them, and the right of property 
includes the right of sundering them. If 
therefore slaves are married in moral right, 
slavery is guilty of parting those whom God 
had joined together, and drags after it the 
crime of adultery. The slave system separ- 
ates the parties and joins them in other con- 
nections, so that witliin a few years the same 
man may have several wives, and the same 
woman several husbands, and all living at the 
«ame time. 

2. If slaves are not married in moral right, 
as they are not and cannot be in tlie eyes of 
the civil law, slavery stands cliargcd with 
breaking u]) this heaven appointed institu- 
ion, and of involving the slave i)opulation 



SLAVERY : A SIN' AGAINST GOD. 19 

in the crime of general whoredom. There 
is so far as we can see, no way to escape 
these conclusions ; if the advocate of slavery- 
allows that slaves are brought within the 
marriage institution, he assumes that the 
power to separate those whom God hath 
joined together can rightfully exist ; a thing, 
in our view, impossible. If he admits that 
slaves are not brought within the marriage 
institution, he assumes the rightfulness of 
general sexual intercourse without the bans 
of matrimony. Such is slavery, consisting 
in the assumed right of property in human 
beings, wherever it is found, in the church 
or out of the church. We speak as to wise 
men ; judge of what we say. 



20 ShAVKKY : A SIN' AUAIN'ST «J<>I>. 



ARGUMENT FOURTH: 



Slavery further conflicts with those social 
relations and duties which not only spring from 
our social nature, but which god has also en- 
joined by positive enactment by subverting 
the rights and obligations which grow out of 
relations subsisting between parents and child- 
REN. 

That there are rights and obligations con- 
nected with this relation, around which God 
has thrown the protection of his law, armed 
with the arrows of his lightnings, and the 
voice of his thunders, cannot be denied ; and 
that slavery disregards them and tramples 
them under foot, if not admitted shall be 
proved. 

When God descended upon Mount Sinai 
and gave his law amid the dreadful light- 
nings that blazed and glared, and shot their 
fiery arrows ath\vart the smoke and gloom 
that mantled the Eternal upon the mount, 
and amid tlie thunders that bellowed terrors 
and poured the voice of condemnation intlie 
ear of sin ; He then wrote with his own 
linger upon a table of stone, as the lifth of 
the ten commandments, the following words : 
"Honor thy father and mother, that thy days 
may be-long upon the land which the Lord 
thy God giveth thee." 

The duty of the child to honor his father 
and mother, clearly im})lies the obligation 
of tlie i)arents so to teacli and so to l)ehave 
towards the child, as is calculated to inspire 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 21 

the feelings and write upon the heart of the 
child what God wrote in the book of his 
law. This sentiment is clearly brought out 
in the comment of St. Paul. 

" Ephe. \i. 1—1. '' Children obey your 
parents in the Lord for this is right. Honor 
thy father and mother which is the first com- 
mandment with promise, that it may be well 
with thee, and thou mayest live long on the 
earth. And ye, fathers, provoke not your 
children to wrath ; but bring them up in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord. 

Here we have the obligation growing out 
of the relation that subsists between parents 
and children, as defined by the spirit of in- 
spiration ; and that slavery necessarily wars 
upon, and entirely subverts these obligations, 
is all that remains to be proved, and this is 
so plain and obvious that it is like proving 
what is self evident. 

1. Can parents, who are subject to all the 
liabilities of property, and whose children 
are also property in the same full sense, 
bring up their children in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord? This cannot be 
pretended. Sons are torn away from the 
embrace of their father, and removed forever 
beyond the sight of his eye ; daughters are 
borne in chains Irom the throbbing, heaving 
bosom and bleeding hearts of their mothers. 

" Where no mothers ear can hear them, 
Where no mother's eye can see them." 

Slavery which assumes the right of property 
in man, in fathers and mothers, and mothers 
and children, takes from the parents all 
right of control over their children, and 



22 SIJLVERY : A SIN' ACAIN'ST GOD. 

licnco, it violates the divine law, for that 
commands them to control them for good. 
Cod says to parents, "brino: up your children 
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord •/' 
but slavery says, no, you cannot have the 
right of bringing them up, or if you do, you 
must bring them up for the market, bring 
them up for me, that I may sacrifice your 
sons upon the altar of my avarice, and your 
daughters upon the altar of my lust. 

2. ('an children who are " personal chattels 
to all intents and jnirposes and constructions 
whatsoever," honor their fathers and moth- 
ers? Can they '• obey their parents in the 
Lord ?'' Most certainly nor. The son looks 
not, cannot look to his father, if father he 
knows, for authority and direction during 
the years of his minority ; nor can he honor, 
comfort, and su})])ort that father in his declin- 
ing years, after the son has come to the riper 
years of manhood. The daughter cannot 
obey her own mother in childhood and youth, 
much less can she honor and cherish her in 
riper years ; she must see her mother, if she 
be allowed to see her at all, languish, faint 
and die under the clfects of toil, hunger and 
the lash, without dropping a word of conso- 
lation in her ear, or extending a daughter's 
hand to her relief— all this is true of the 
daughter, concernins^ her who in anguish gave 
her l)eing, and sheltered her in her bosom 
during the cloudy morning of her existence, 
and nourished her upon tiic milk of toil and 
weariness until she was strong enough to en- 
dure life's hoavitn* storms. 

Tlint nil thi^ is wicked, it would be an in- 



SLAVERV : A SIX AGAINST GOD. 23 

suit to common sense to attempt to prove. 
It directly violates and sets aside as plain a 
command as there is in the book of God, and 
if this is not sin, the ten commandments may 
all be violated without sin. 

Should it be said in reply to this, that un- 
der the circumstances, the parents are re- 
leased from the obligation to bring up their 
children in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord, and children are released from the ob- 
ligation to obey their parents in the Lord, 
as God's law does not require impossibilities ; 
we respond, that God's law can never be 
annihilated or nullified in its claims. It is and 
must forever be, binding in some form • and 
if the above circumstances exempt parents and 
children from the obligation to obey God's 
law, or rather from the penalty of the law, 
for it is not obeyed, the guilt -rests upon 
those who are the authors of such circum- 
stances. If a man who is stronger than we 
put fetters upon us so that we cannot do 
what God has commanded us to do, God will 
not, it is true, hold us responsible ; but he 
will hold that man responsible who puts the 
fetters upon us for the non performance of 
all that duty, of which he has been the cause. 
When the slaveholder steps in between God 
and the slave, and between parents and chil- 
dren, to prevent the discharge of the duties 
which God commands them as parents and 
children to discharge towards each other, he 
takes the place of both parent and child, and 
assumes before God the responsibility of the 
non-performance of the duty of both, 'for 
which God will hold him responsible. This 



24 SLAVERY ; A SIN AGAlN'ST GOD. 

argument might be greatly extended, and the 
terrible consequences to society, resulting 
from a dissolution of all social relations and 
ties, might be dwelt upon, but it is not neces- 
sary. The siuiple fact that it conflicts wiih 
the specific commands of God secures all that 
is to be gained by the argument. 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 25 



ARGUMENT FIFTH. 



THE BIBLE CONDEMXS SLAVERY UNDER THE NAME 
OF MAX-STEALING. 



It would be a waste of time to attempt to 
prove that man-stealing is a crime. It is 
universally admitted that all stealing is 
wrong, and it follows that man-stealing is the 
most sinful of all theft. It cannot be" main- 
tained that to steal the horse under the rider 
would be a sin, while to steal the rider off 
the horse would be a justifiable act. 

That man-stealing is condemned in the Bi- 
ble will not be denied. Ex. xxi. 16. " He 
that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he 
be found in his hand, shall surely be put to 
death.'^ St. Paul tells us, 2 Tim. i. 10, that 
the law of God " is made for men stealers." 
The only question about which there can be 
any dispute is this ; is American slavery, as 
it now exists, man-stealmg? 

I. American slavery had its origin in man- 
stealing. 

1. The facts, as generally understood, are 
such as to stamp the whole business of the 
foreign slave trade with the odious name of 
man-stealing. No matter who was engaged 
in it, saint or devil, it was nevertheless man- 
stealing. The business commenced by steal- 
ing such persons as they could catch along 
the coast, and force away from country, 



^6 SLAVERY : A S!>r AGAIXST fiOD, 

home and friends, to live, suffer and die in 
bondage among strangers. AVhen the in- 
creasing market could not be supplied in this 
"way, otlier means w(3rc resorted to. The 
kidnappers would land for purposes of trade, 
and while trading, would p')ur out to tlieir 
unsuspecting customers the intoxicating drink, 
who, not being acquainted with the power of 
ardent spirit, would soon become helpless, 
and then while drunk the pale-faced demons 
w^ould secure them. When they awoke irom 
their drunk'^nncss, they found themselves, not 
like Noah under the protection of affection- 
ate sous, buL in chains and in the hell of the 
slave ship. But at last, to sui)]dy the in- 
creasing demand, war was resorted to, which 
was no less man-stealing. The wars, it 
slunild be understood, were commenced for the 
exiu'css ])urpose of obtaining slaves, hence, it 
was stealing on a larger scale. If two men 
go and take' one, it is'stealing ; if ten go and 
lake five, it is stealing ; if one hundred go 
and take fifty, it is stealing ; and if one thou- 
sand go and take five hundred, it is no less 
man-stealing. 

2. The law of our country deems it man- 
stoalinu-. It is pronounced piracy, and pun- 
ished i)y death l>y the laws of the United 
Htaten* • Jt is no 'more morally wrong now, 
than when it was toherated : hence, it was 
always wrong. 

II. The present race or generation ol 
slaves can be held by no ])etter title or au- 
thority than that by wliicli their stolen fath- 
ers and mothers weru held. They were 
oriirinally stolen, and, ol' course, there was 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 27 

no valid title to them ; if, therefore, there is 
now a title to those bondmen and bond- 
women, it has been obtained or originated 
since their fathers and mothers were stolen. 
We demand at what period in the dark his- 
tory of slavery, this supposed title to these 
human beings began to exist. As there was 
no title at first, they being stolen, it follows 
that there can be no title now, that they are 
stolen persons still, unless it can be shown 
when, under what circumstances, and upon 
what principles the title originated, and 
began to exist. 

By the law of slavery, the condition of 
the offspring follows the condition of the 
mother. Let us then suppose what is the 
fact in the case, — some men-stealers, for 
whom the law of God was made, went to 
Africa, and stole a helpless female. Had he 
any right or title to her ? Certainly not. 
The next step in this infamous business was, 
the man-thief sold this stolen female to a 
Southern planter. Had the planter any title 
to her ? Certainly not ; for he could have 
none only what he bougl^t ; and he could 
buy none only what the thief had to sell ; 
and he had no title to sell, and therefore he 
could sell none ; and therefore the planter 
could buy none of him ; and therefore the 
planter could have no title. This is all just 
as certain as it is that one man cannot com- 
municate to another what he has not got. 
As the thief had no title to his stolen victim, 
he could communicate no title to the man to 
whom he sold. 

The third step in the progress of slavery 



28 SI-AVHKY : A SIN AtlAlNiiT GOD. 

is, this enslaved female had ofifspring iu her 
bonds. Had the planter, who held her with- 
out title, a title to her child as his property ? 
Slavery itself does not pretend to any title 
to the children which is not founded upon a 
supposed title to the mother ; hence, as 
there was no title to the mother, there can 
be none to the child. As the mother ^yas a 
stolen person in his hands, so is the child a 
stolen person in hvo hands if he restrains it 
as his property. Slavery, therefore, is man- 
stealing, and 'must remain man-stealing so 
long as it shall be continued. 

It can make no difference in moral prin- 
ciple, from what particular place we steal a 
human being, whether from Africa or in 
America. Now, it appears, from the boast- 
ed chart of the nation's rights, that every 
child, born in this land, has an inalienable 
right to liberty, as much so as children now 
born in Africa or in any other country. 
Where, tlien, is the difference in moral prin- 
ciple, whether we go to Africa and take a 
child, and bring it here for a slave, or take 
one born here ? The child, born of the en- 
slaved mother iit South Carolina, has the 
same inalienable right to liberty, the gift of 
God, as the child born in Africa. Where is 
the justice ? Where is the consistency ? If 
the law of the nation, which declares that 
he wlio brings children from Africa to nn\ke 
slaves of them, shall l)c hanged as a pirate 
ujjon the high seas, be right, then he who 
takes cliildren born iu tliis land, and holds 
them as property and as slaves, ought to be 
hanged as a land pirate ; for the one has the 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 29 

same inalienable right to liberty as the other. 

To invalidafe these arguments, we must 
deny the truth of the Declaration of Ameri- 
can Independence, we must disprove the unity 
of human nature, that " God has made of 
one blood all nations of men," equal in 
natural rights ; and we must falsify the uni- 
versal conviction of mankind, which each 
feels, that- he was born free, and has a right 
.to himself. 

We will close this argument by saying 
that American slavery is essentially man- 
stealing ; that the Bible condemns man-steal- 
ing, and therefore theBible condemns slavery. 



ARGUMENT SIXTH: 

The Bible further condemns slavery specifi- 
cally BY CONDEilNING THE TRAFFIC IN HUMAN BEINGS. 

Deut. xxiv. T. " li a- man be found steal- 
ing any of his brethren of the children of 
Isi'fiel, and maketh merchandise of him, or- 
selleth him ; then that thief shall die ; and 
thou shalt put evil away from among you." 

This text most clearly condemns, not only 
the act of stealing men, but the act of mak- 
ing merchandize of men. The principle of 
trafl&c in human beings is condemned. There 
is only one point on which the advocate of 
slavery can hang an objection and that is the 



30 SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST Gt)I). 

fact that it simply condemns makino: mer- 
chandise of the children of Israel. This is 
fully answered by the remark that Israel 
after the flesh, cannot be more sacred in the 
eye of God, than Israel after the Spirit. If 
it was wrong to make merchandise of a Jew, 
])ecause he was a Jew, it must be wrong to 
make merchandise of a Christian, because 
he is a Christian. 

Chap xxi. 14. " And it shall be, if thou 
have no delight in her, then thou shalt let 
her go whither she will ; but thou shalt not 
sell her for money, thou shalt not make mer- 
chandise of her." 

This is spoken of a female captive taken 
in war, it fully condemns the idea of selling 
human beings. 

Amos ii. 6. " Thus saith the Lord ; For 
three transgressions of Israel, and for four, 
I will not turn away the punishment thereof ; 
because they sold the righteous for silver, 
and the poor for a pair of shoes." 

On this text it may be remarked. 

1. The slaves are often righteous, so that it 
is true to the very letter, that the righteous 
are sold for silver. 

2. The slaves are all poor and arc often 
Vtartered and gam])led away for a (considera- 
tion as snnill as a pair of shoes. 

Zech. xi.4, f). " Thus saith the Lord my 
God ; Feed the flock of the slaughter, whose 
possessors slay them, and hold themselves 
not guilty : and they that sell them say. 
Blessed he the Lord ; for I am rich : and 
their own shepherds pity them not." 

If there was ever a true picture, this is a 



SLAVERY : A 31N AGAINST GOD. 31 

true picture of slavery : The members of 
the flock of Jesus Christ are sold, " and they 
that sell them say blessed be the Lord, for I 
am rich ; and their own shepherds pity them 
not." 

Joel iii, 3. ^ And they have cast lots for 
my people ; and have given a boy for a* har- 
lot, and sold a girl for'^Avine, that they might 
drink." 

That every crime here condemned is part 
and parcel of American slavery, cannot be 
denied. The right of property in man is 
the foundation of these crimes. How often 
are slaves exchanged one for aaother, so that 
it is literally true that a boy is given for a 
harlot. Again, how often is it the case in 
their gambling and drinking revels that 
slaveholders pawn their servants for their 
bills, or gamble them away, so that it is lit- 
erally true that a girl is sold for wine that 
they may drink- 
In concluding this argument, two things 
are to be noticed. 

1. The Bible, as has been shown, clearly 
condemns the traffic in human beings. 

2. American slavery assumes the right of 
buying and selling humjin beings as personal 
chatties. 

From the above propositions it follows 
that the Bible condemns slavery. 



o2 .SLAVKKY : A .SIX AGAINST «0I). 

A R G U M E NT SEVENTH: 
The Bible further condemns Slavery, specifi- 

tALLY BY condemning INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. 

That slavery is involuntary; servitude will 
not 1)6 denied : Indeed it is only involun- 
tary slavery that we labor to condemn in 
these numbers. The only question tliat needs 
to be settled in this argument, is tlie wrong 
of forcing one man to serve another against 
his will. AVe know of no scriptures, which, 
by any fair construction, can be made to jus- 
tify compulsory service. But we will quote 
a few texts which, in our own mind, condemn 
it. 

Deut. xxiii. 15, IG.— " Thou shalt not de- 
liver unto his master the servant which is 
escaped from his master unto thee ; He shall 
dwell with thee, even among you, in tliat 
place which he shall choose in one of thy 
gates, where it liketh him best ; thou shalt 
not oppress him." 

This text most clearly condemns involun- 
tary service, for it most clearly justifies the 
servant in leaving his master and protects 
him in it against the ])ursuits of his master, 
and even forbids the i)eople among whom he 
may go to deliver him up. It appears from 
this text that there was such a thing as in- 
voluntary servitude, and in this text it is ef- 
fectually condemneil. It is clear that the 
Jews were forluddeii to comi)el service 
against tlie will of the servant. This will 
ap])ear still more plain from another text. 
This subject is treated at large ])y the pro- 



SLAVERY : A SIX AGAINST GOD. OO 

pliet, and to save the reader the trouble of 
turning to his Bible, while reading this argu- 
ment, we quote the prophet at length. 

Jer. xxxiv. 6. " Then Jeremiah the pro- 
phot spake all these words unto Zedekiah king 
of Judah in Jerusalem : 

7. When the king of Babylon's array fought 
against Jerusalem, and against all the cities 
of Judah that were left, against Lachish, and 
against Azekah ; for these defenced cities 
remained of the cities of Judah. 

8. This is the word that came unto Jere- 
miah from the Lord, after that the king Zed- 
ekiah had made a covenant with all the peo- 
ple which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim 
liberty unto them ; 

9. That every man should let his man ser- 
vant, and every man his maid servant, being 
a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free ; that 
none should serve himself of them ; and to 
wit, of a Jew his brother. 

10. Now when all the princes and all the 
people, which had entered into the conven- 
ant, heard that every one should let his man 
servant, and every one his maid servant, go 
free that none should serve themselves of 
them any more, then they obeyed, and let 
them go. 

11. But afterwards they turned and caused 
the servants and the hand maids, whom they 
had let go free, to return, and brought tljem 
into subjection for servants and for hand 
maids. 

12. Therefore the word of the Lord came 
to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, 

13. Thus saith the Lord, the God of Is- 



34 SLAVERY : A SIX AfJAINST GOD. 

rael ; 1 made a covenant with your fathers 
in the day that I brought them forth out of 
the house of bondmen, saying, 

14. At the end of seven years let ye go 
every man his brother a Hebrew, wliich hath 
been sold unto thee ; and wlicn he hath ser- 
ved thee six years, thou shalt let him go free 
from thee : ])ut your fatliers hearkened not 
unto me, neither inclined their ear. 

15. And ye were now turned, and had 
done right in my sight, in proclaiming lib- 
erty to every man to his neighbor ; and ye 
had made a covenant before me in the house 
which is called by my name : 

16. But ye turned and polluted my name, 
and caused every man his servant, and every 
man his hand maid, whom he had set at lib- 
erty at their pleasure, to return, and brought 
them into subjection, to be unto you for ser- 
vants and for hand maids. 

16. Therefore thus saith the Lord ; ye 
have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming 
liberty every one to his brother, and every 
man to his neighbor : behold, I proclaim a 
liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, 
to the pestilence, and to the famine ; and I 
will make you to be removed into all the 
kingdoms of the earth." 

The fourteenth verse speaks of being sold 
for seven years, but it is obvious the price 
for which a man was sold was his own, and 
went into his own pocket, for the bejieht of 
his family, or at most to pay his debts, the 
amount of which he had previously enjoyed 
and consumed. What is here called selling 
was obviouslv nothing: more than a conti'act 



SLAVERY : A SIX AGAINST GOD. 60 

for service with pay in advance ; and hence 
the law was like our statute of limitation. 
It forbade men to make a contract for ser- 
vice for more than seven years. The seven 
years' service was voluntary, because agreed 
upon by the parties, and paid for in advance ; 
but when they kept the servant beyond that 
time, it became involuntary, and God con- 
demned it, and punished them for it. 

Isa. Iviii. 6. " Is not this the fast that I 
have chosen ? to loose the bands of wicked- 
ness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let 
the oppressed go free ?'' 

The expression, " let the oppressed gofree,'^ 
is a full condemnation of involuntary servi- 
tude. To compel any man to serve another 
against his will, who is out of his minority 
and uncondemned for crime, is to oppress 
him ; and the command to let the oppressed 
go free, condemns such forced service. 

American slavery is a system of force and 
violence, and cannot be maintained for a day, 
only by a constant war upon the very life of 
the slaves. For all this there is no warrant 
in the Bible, but much against it. Involun- 
tary service must be wrong, from the fact 
that the violence necessary to maintain it is 
wrong. Whips for the naked back, thumb 
screws, chains, prisons, and other modes of 
•torture, to subdue persons unconvicted of 
crime, have no warrant in the Gospel, and 
cannot be justified, only upon a principle 
which will justify every species of violence 
men may choose to practice one upon another. 



36 'SLAVEKY : A SIN ACAINST t:<-)I». 



A R G U M E N T EIGHTH. 



Slavery is a work without wages, which is con- 
demned IN THE Bible. 

Dcut. xxiv. 14, 15. " Thou slialt not op- 
press a hired servant that is poor and needy, 
whetlicr he be of thy brethren, or of thy 
strangers that be in thy land within thy 
gates. At his day tliou slialt give him his 
hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it ; 
for he is poor, and sctteth his heart upon it ; 
lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, and 
it be sin unto the." 

It may be said that this text does not meet 
the case, because it speaks of hired servant, 
but this cannot alter the principle involved. 
The text condemns the act of withholding 
what is a man's due for his labor, and this 
every slaveholder does. One man volunta- 
rily goes to work with the expectation of 
wages, while the employer seizes upon ano- 
ther and compels him to work, nokns vokns. 
"We ask is not the man who is compelled to 
work as much entitled to pay as he who 
works voluntarily ? Certainly he is. This 
is kept back, and in this the slave is oppres- 
sed. 

Jer. xxii. 13, 14. " Wo unto Idiu tliat l)uild- 
cth his house by unrighteousness, and his 
chambers by wrong ; that useth his neigh- 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 57 

bor's service without wages, and givetli him 
not for his work ; that saith, I will build me 
a wide house and a large chambers, and cut- 
teth him out windows ; and it is ceiled with 
cedar, and painted with vermilion." 

This most certainly meets the case exactly ; 
nothing is said about hiring men, but simply 
using their service without wages, which 
every slaveholder does. Men are here abso- 
lutely forbidden to use their neighbor's ser- 
vice without wages, and as slavery is a sys- 
tem of work without wages, it is here for- 
bidden. 

Hab. ii. 9, 10, 11, 12. " Wo to him that 
coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, 
that he may set his nest on high, that he 
may be delivered from the power of evil ! 
Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by 
cutting off many people, and hast sinned 
against thy soul. For the stone shall cry 
out of the wall, and the beam out of the tim- 
ber shall answer it. Wo to him that build- 
eth a town with blood, and establisheth a 
city by iniquity. 

To establish a city by iniquity is to build 
up a city with the fruit of thie unpaid toil of 
slaves, and every city in the south is built 
in this way. 

Mai. iii. 5. " And I will come near to you 
to judgment : and I will be a swift witness 
against the sorcerers, and against abulterers, 
and against false swearers, and against those 
who oppress the hireling in his wages, the 
widow and the fatherless, and that turn aside 
the stranger from his right, and fear not me 
saith the Lord of hosts." 



38 SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 

James v. 4. " Behold, the hire of the la- 
borers which liavc reaped down your fields, 
which iri-of you kept back ])y fraud, crieth ; 
and the cries of thcni which have reaped are 
entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." 

The al)ove texts are sufficient to prove that 
the Bible forbids one class of men to use the 
labor of another clJiss, without paying them 
for their work, and in forbidding this, it for- 
bids slavery. Some may say that slaves are 
paid in food and raiment. These are bestow- 
ed only so far as they promote the master's 
interest, and they are not wages any more 
than the oats a man feeds his horse, or the 
grease he puts upon his carriage, or the ma- 
nure with which he dresses his field, are 
wages. Wages is the amount stipulated and 
paid for service, but there is no stipulation 
between the master and slave ; the slave has 
no voice in determining the amount he re- 
ceives ; this is unknown to him at the time 
labor is demanded and rendered, and is de- 
termined by the arbitrary will of the master. 
to constitute wages, the amount rendered for 
service must be a matter of mutual agreement 
between the parties. But as slavery is a sys- 
tem of absolute rule on the part of the mas- 
ter, and of coerced submission on the part of 
the slave, without the consent of his will to 
condition or stipulation, the very idea of 
wages is excluded. 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 39 



ARGUMENT NINTH. 

The Bible condemns slavery under the 

NAME OF oppression. 

Two points are to be settled, >iz., that 
slavery is identical with oppression, and how 
the Bible treats oppression. 

What is oppresson ? According to Dr. 
Webster, oppression is " the imposition of 
unreasonable burdens, either in taxes or ser- 
vice." An oppressor, according to the sanie 
authority, is "one that imposes unjust bur- 
dens on others ; one that harasses others 
with unjust laws or unreasonable severity.'' 
This is a life like picture of slavery and 
slaveholders. It must be the extreme of op- 
pression. For one man, because he has the 
power so to do, to compel his neighbor to 
work for him twenty-five days in a year, 
without his consent, would be oppression, 
and will it not be oppression to compel him 
to work the whole year ? If slavery be not 
oppression, than may an evil be changed to 
a virtue by increasing it in magnitude. To 
compel a man to work without wages every 
tenth year of his life, would be oppression 
by univeral consent, but to compel him to 
work life-long, commencing his toils at the 
misty dawn of existence, and closing them 
amid the gathering shadows of its dark go- 
ing down, is no oppression ! According to 
this logic, to rob a man of a part of his la- 



40 Sl-AVEKY : A ^^IN AGAINST GOU. 

l)or would be wrong, but to take tlie whole 
Avould make it right! To rob a man of a 
part of liis time, would be a crime, but to rob 
him of all his time, of himself, his head and 
heart, his body and limbs, his mind and will, 
and all he can do, possess and acquire, ren- 
ders it an act of righteousness ! 

But the J^ible will settle the question of 
oppression. 

Ex. iii. 9. "Now therefore, behold, the cry 
of the children of Israel i^ come unto me: 
and 1 have also seen the oppression where- 
with the Egyptians oppress them." 

What then did the Egyptians do to the Is- 
raelites ? They compelled them to work for 
the government. 

Here we have the history of the mstter, as 
follows :— Ex. i. 8-11. " Now there arose 
up a new king over Egypt, which knew not 
Joseph. And he said unto his people, Be- 
hold, the people of the children of Israel arc 
more and mightier than we : Come on, let 
us deal wisely with them ; lest they multiply, 
and it come to pass, that, when there falleth 
out any war, they join also unto our enemies, 
and fight against us, and so get them up out 
of the land. Therefore they did set over- 
them task-masters, to alllict them with their 
burdens. And they Ijuilt for Pharaoh trea- 
sure-cities, rithom and Raamses.'' 

This was oppression whicli awakened the 
sympathies of Jehovah, and brought out the 
thickest and heaviest of his thunders. Yet 
he bore it longer than American slavery has 
existed. But what was there in that more 
enormous than American slvcry ? Absolute- 



• SLAVEY : A SIX AGAINST GOD. 41 

ly nothing. They placed task-masters over 
them, and so do they place task masters over 
the slaves. And if, as a last resort, the 
Egyptians ordered thp cliildren of the He- 
brews to be destroyed ; the slaveholders 
claim the children of the slaves as thcfir pro- 
perty, and sell them in the market for gain, 
which is worse than to be strangled at birth. 
It is clear that slavery is oppression of the 
worst degree. 

But how does God deal with oppression, 
and oppressors ? He condemns oppression 
and oppressors ; he commands his people to 
relieve the oppressed ; he threatens oppres- 
sors with terrible punishment, and has al- 
ready expended more of his thunders, and 
more of the phials of his wrath on the heads 
of oppressors than on all other sinners. 

Gen. XXV. 17. Ye shall not therefore op- 
press one another ; but thou shalt fear thy 
God : for I am the Lord thy God.'' 

Here oppression is not only forbidden, but 
it is done in a manner wh4h implies that it 
is inconsistent with the fear of God. 

Deut. xxxiii. 15, 16. Thou shalt not deliver 
itnto his master the servant which is escaped 
from his master unto thee : He shall dwell 
wath thee, even among you, in that place 
w^hich he shall choose in one of thy gates, 
where it liketh him best : thou shall not op- 
press him.'' This clearly forbids the oppres- 
sion of a self emancipated servant. 

Deut. xxiv. 14. Thou shalt not oppress a 
hired servant that is poor and needy, whether 
he he of thy brethern, or of thy strangers that 
are in thy land within thy gates :" 



42 SLAVERY : A SIN AGAlXsif 



GOD, 



This text specially forbids the oppression 
of a servant' that is a Jew or a Gentile. 

Psal. X. 17, 18. "Lord, thou hast heard the 
desire of the humble, thou wilt prepare their 
heart, ihou wilt cause thine ear to hear. To 
judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that 
the man of the earth may no more oppress." 
This appears to look forward to a day when 
oppression shall cease from the earth. Will 
there be any slavery there ? 

Psa. Lxxiii. 8, 9. " They are corrupt and 
speak wickedly concerning oppression : they 
speak loftily. They set their mouth against 
the heavens : and their tongue walketh 
through the earth. A clearer description 
could not well be given of modern slave- 
holders, an-i their abetters ; they speak 
wickedly concerning oppression. They in- 
vade the rights and government of God ; 
they set their mouth against the heavens. 

Psa. xii. 5. "For the oppression of the 
poor, for the sigWng of the needy, now will 
I arise saith the jLord ; I will set him in 
safety yVo^Ti kim that pufteth at him." 

Psa. Lxxii. 4. "He shall judge the poor of 
the people, he sliall save the children of the 
needy, and sliall break in pieces the op- 
pressor." 

Isa. i. IT. Learn to do well : seek judg- 
ment, relieve the oppressed ; judge the fath- 
erless ; plead for the widow." 

Isa. Lviii. 9. " Is not this the fast that I 
have chosen? To loose the bands of wicked- 
ness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let 
the oppressed go free, and tliat ye break 
every yoke?" 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 43 

This commands the release of all the op- 
pressed ; and the expression "let the op- 
pressed go free," clearly forbids involuntary- 
servitude, and commands the freedom of every 
slave in the land. 

Prov. iii. 31. "Envy thou not the oppres- 
sor, and choose none of his ways.'' 

This clearly forbids oppression in all its 
practical aspects. 

Prov. xiv. 31. He that oppresseth the 
poor reproacheth his maker : but he that 
honoreth him hath mercy on the poor.'' 

All slaveholders oppress the poor, and of 
course reproach their maker. 

Prov. xxii. 22. "Rob not the poor because 
he is poor ; neither oppress the afflicted in 
the gate." 

The afflicted are oppressed in the gates of 
every slaveholding city in this nation. 

Jer. vii. 5 — 7. "For if ye thoroughly 
amend your ways and your doings ; if ye 
thoroughly execute judgement between a 
a man and his neighbor ; If ye oppress not 
the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, 
and shed not innocent blood in this place, 
neither walk after other gods to your hurt : 
then will I cause you to dwell in this place, 
in the land that I gave to your fathers, for 
ever and ever." 

Jer. xxi. 12. "0 house of David, thus saith 
the Lord ; execute judgment in the morning, 
and deliver him that is spoiled out of the 
hand of the oppressor, lest my fury go out 
like fire, and burn that none can quench it, 
because of the evil of your doings. Behold. 
I am against thee, 0, inhabitant of the val- 



41 SLAVKRY : A SIN' AGAINST GOD 

ley, and rock of the plain saith the Lord ; 
which say, who shall come down against us ? 
or, who shall enter into our habitations ?" 

Eccle. iv. 1. " So I returned, and consid- 
ered all the oppressions that are done under 
the sun : and, behold, the tears of such as 
were oppressed, and they had no comforter ; 
and on the side of their oppressors there was 
power ; but they had no comforter." 

Had the inspired writer had his prophetic 
eye on the scenes of our own slaveholding- 
land, listening to, and beholding the groans 
and sighs and tears, and wrongs of the su- 
gar plantations, and the rice swamps,^he 
would not have drawn a truer picture of 
those sorrow burdened and blood stained 
fields. 

Eccle. vii. 7. "Surely oppression maketh 
a wise man mad." 

Ezek. xxii. 7. In thee have they set light 
by father and mother ; in the midst of thee 
have they dealt by Oj)pression with the 
stranger ; in thee have they vexed the father- 
less and the widow." 

Every word of this is true of slavery. 

Verse 29. "The people of the land have 
used oppression, and exercised robbery, and 
have vexed the poor atid needy ; yea, they 
have oppressed the stranger wrongfully." 

Zeph. iii. 1. "Wo to her that is filthy and 
polluted, to the 0})pressing city ! 

This is applicable to any and every slave- 
holding city. 

Mai. iii. 5. "And I will come near to you 
to judgment ; and 1 will be a swift witness 
against the sorcerers, and against the adul 



SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 45 

terers, and against false swearers, ^ and 
against those that oppress the hireling in his 
wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that 
turn aside the stranger from his rights and 
fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts." 

If a man were to stand up in any of the 
slaveholding cities or towns in the southern 
states, and proclaim the above as a commu- 
.nication from himself, and as expressive of . 
his views of the manner in which God will 
deal with the people, he would be under- 
stood to speak of slavery, and he arrested 
for the same. How clear is it then that 
the text comprehends slavery and denounces 
it. 

Only a part of the texts have been quoted 
above which relate to the subject, but they 
are sufficient to prove that slavery is com- 
prehended in the sin of oppression, and that 
it is classed with the worst of crimes. Here 
the direct argument in proof of the sinful- 
ness of slavery closes, and if it is not a sin 
against God and man, it must be difficult to 
find sin developed in human society, for it 
embraces the essential elements of every pos- 
sible crime. It is known that some persons 
have claimed that the scriptures justify and 
support slavery, but a refutation ot tnis pos- 
ition, by a thorough examination of those 
texts which are attempted to be p' essed in 
to the service of slavery, must be left 
for a separate treatise. 



SECTION II. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT, NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 



It lias been proved in a series of arguments 
that the Bible condemns slavery ; yet some 
may contend that other portions of the sa- 
cred volume justify ihe principle of slavery, 
and tolerate the practice of slaveholding.- 
This cannot be true ; if any portion of the 
Bible, really condemns slavery, no other por- 
tion can justify it, without an obvious self- 
impeachment of the record. No doubt, most 
persons, on a candid perusal of the argu- 
ments in support of the position that the Bi- 
ble condemns slavery, will judge them of 
sufficient strength in themselves to settle the 
question, and warrant the conclusion that no 
part of the Bible can justify slavery ; yet as 
some who profess to believe the scriptures, 
contend for slavery, /wro divino, and as others 
who may never be able to believe slavery 
right, may be confused and . perplexed by 
pro-slavery assumptions and glosses, is it 
deemed proper to attempt an examination of 
those portions of the Bible Avhich have been 
considered the strong hold of slavery, and 
see if the monster sin cannot be driven fro.n 
within the lids of the sacred volume. 

This undertaking is of more importance 



> Tin: LiiiiiA: NO la.tit.E tou slavery. 

lan may be supposed bv some, at first sight, 
or so long as ihcre is a lingering sus])icioii 
that slavery finds any shcller in the Bible, 
the piiidic conscience can never be roused ful- 
ly to feel its enormity. Notwithstanding, 
there may be much infidelity and scepticism 
in the land, it is a fact that tlie Bible is gen- 
erally felt to be the standard, by which the 
right or wrong of human conduct must be 
teste<l. The ahnost universal circulation of 
the Scriptures, the fact that all tlie truly 
religious and prayful hold them to be given 
by inspiration of God, and the manner in 
which they are appealed to by all successful 
' debaters in our legislative halls, and by ad- 
vocates' in our courts of justice, proves how 
strong a hold they have upon tlie public con- 
fidence. It is true, there are a few persons 
who openly repudiate the Scriptures, and 
represent them as teaching almost every 
wicked and corrupt thing, and slavery among 
the rest, not to justify slavery, but to con- 
demn the Bible. The writer has met with a 
few persons, who contended that the Bible is 
a pro-slavery book, ;is a means of rendering 
the Scriptures contemjitible. But such are 
very few, and frequent developements have 
proved that men who profess to disbelieve 
the Scriptures, and who treat them with con- 
tempt, often do it in violation of their own 
convictions of right. While tliey rail against 
the Bible, tliey have an internal and often 
illy suppressed conviction, that it is the word 
of God, and that they must be judged by it. 
It appears safe to conclude, tliat even the 
infidel fcol.i more at case in the practice of 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 49 

slavery, while he is made to believe that the 
Scriptures justify his condact, than when he 
is convinced that the Bible is against him. 
How important is it then, to examine the 
subject, and cut slavery off from all claim to 
support from the sacred volume ? If this 
can be done, if it can be made to appear that 
no part of the Scriptures contains any war- 
rent for human bondage in the shape of 
American slavery, and if this conviction can 
be made to take hold of tl e public mind, 
and especially the religious portion, slavery 
must die. Let, it be felt that nothing like 
slavery was tolerated by the law*' of Moses, 
and let all be made to feel that there is noth- 
ing in the teachings of Jesus Christ to justi- 
fy slavery, that slave catchers are not follow- 
ing the example of St. Paul, and that no ex- 
ample of slave-holding can be traced out in 
the history of the Apostolic Church, and all 
who mean to be Christians, will not only 
abandon it, but oppose it as they oppose any 
other sin. Theie is too much light, and too 
great a love of consistency, for any class of 
men, long to-justify the practice of slavehold- 
ing, after they are constrained to admit that 
it is a crime against God. The conclusion is 
so deniable that if men may practice one 
great sin, they n)ay practice any and every 
great sin, as interest or inclination may dic- 
tate, that but few if any will occupy the po- 
sition who admit that there is a difference be- 
tween right and wrong. It. is only necessary 
then to drive slavery from the Bible, expel it 
from the pi'lpit, and chase it from the altars 
of religion, and it will find but little quarter 
in the world. 
3 

u 



00 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

The Bible does not and cannot be inade to 
justily .shiver\ in practice, even if tlie prin- 
ciple of slavery be found in it, lor want of 
a specific rule to govern the application of 
the principle in reducing it to practice. If 
the Bible justifies slavery, it must be as a 
general principle, without restriction in re- 
gard lo the persons or classes to whom per- 
tains the lights of slavery, on one hand, and 
the obligations of slavery on the otiier ; or 
it must be in view of some specific rule which 
defines who shall be the master and who shall 
be tlie slave, jf the Bible does not justify 
slavery in -^ne or the other of these aspects^ 
it dop««*iiot and cannot justify it in any 
sen^re' On the first of these positions but 
little need be said. But few if any will con- 
tend that slavery is right as a general prin- 
ciple, without reference to race, class, condi- 
tion or distinction of persons, who possess 
the right to hold slaves, and upon whom 
rests the obligation to sul'init to slavery. If 
slavery be right, as a general principle, in the 
absence of a specific rule, defining who 
shall be the master and who f«hall be the 
slave, every man must be at liberty to en- 
slave whom he can. To insist that slavery 
is right in tlie absence of any specific divine 
law, which clearly defines who shall be the 
master and who shall be the slave, is to say 
that the right to hold slaves is inherent in 
all men, and that each man is at liberty to 
exercise the right whenever he finds himself 
in possession of the ]K)wer to seize upon, 
hold and control liis fellow being. It is also 
to sav that the obligation to submit to be a 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 51 

slave, pertains equally to all men, and that 
each is bound to respond to it the moment a 
hand is laid upon him sufficiently strong to 
hold him. If this be so, a man can have a 
right to liberty only so long as he possesses 
sufficient power to maintain it against all 
aggression. Tliis makes right- depend upon 
might. For a man to coTitend that slavery 
is or can be right upon such a principle, is 
to say that it would be right to make him a 
slave, if a party could be found, possessing 
the requisite power. But the third is too 
absurd to need a reputation. All acts and 
conditions are determined to be right or 
wrong by some rule or law, which relates to 
the subject. In this case the Bible is that 
rule or law for the question is, does the Bible 
justify slavery ? The rule must then be pro- 
duced from the Bible, and it must be so clear 
and specific as to determine who shall be the 
slave and who the master. Suppose the Bi- 
ble said, one man may hold his fellow man 
as a slave ; one man can acquire the right of 
property in his fellow-man ; it could not jus- 
tify slaveholding in any given case, unless it 
should at the same time point out the person 
who might hold slaves, and the persons whom 
he might hold. A man, with his Bible in 
one hand, lays his other hand upon his fel- 
low, and says, you are my slave. Not so fast, 
says the other ; where is your authority for 
claiming me as a slave? The first opening 
his Bible reads the text which affirms 
that man can hold property in man, suppo- 
sing there were such a text. The other re- 
plies, the law does not name you sir, as the 



.'»2 THE ElBLK XO P.EITiiE Yoll S-I.AVKRY. 

man owner, nor inc as the man owned ; if it 
jiistiticp slave owning and holding, it will as 
clearly justify me in owning and holding you, 
as it will you in holding me. There is no 
way to settle the dispute but by the law of 
force, the stranger will prove himself to be 
the slaveholder. 

There can then be no sanction of slavery 
found in the Bible, in the absence of a speci- 
fic rule, defining clearly and certainly who 
shall be the master and who shall be the 
slave, and appropriating to one his rights, 
and to the other his obligations. Now, it is 
denied that any such rule exists, and it is be- 
lieved that no sane mind will attempt to 
point out such a rule upon the sacred page. 
It is proposed to examiue the several texts 
supposed to support slavery, in which exam- 
ination, two points will be kept distinctly in 
view; first none of the texts furnish the 
above rule ; and, secondly, they do not even 
sanction the principle of American slavery. 

I. The curse that was pronounced upon 
Canaan is the oldest bill of rights slavehol- 
ders are wont to plead. 

" Cursed be Canaan ; a servant of servants 
shall he be unto his brethren. Blessed be 
the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be 
his servant." Geji. ix. 25. 26. 

If I had not heard Rev. Divines quote 
ihe above curse ])ronounccd upon Canaan, 
in su))port of slavery, 1 should never have 
thought of replying to arguments Ibunded 
upon it. As it is, 1 reply as follows : — 

1. The colored race which are the victims 
of slaverv in this countrv, arc not the des- 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOIl SLAVERY. Oo 

cendants of cursed Canaan. It must be ad- 
mitted by all, that the curse did not fall 
upon Canaan in his own person, but that it 
was prophetic of the condition of his des- 
cendants of Canaan, and on them alone ; if, 
therefore, the colored race are not the des- 
cendants of Canaan, it cannot justify their 
enslavement. The colored race have descen- 
ded from Ham, through Cush, and not through 
Canaan. The name, Ham, signifies heat, 
hot, brown ; and the name, Cush, signifies 
black ; while Canaan, signifies a merchant, 
or trader. When it is considered that 
Hebrew names were descriptive of actions, 
quality or character, and that they were of- 
ten prophetically given, there is force in 
these names as above defined. 

It is further proved that the Colored race 
are not the descendants -of cursed Canaan, 
by the only history we have of the family of 
Noah. The descendants of Canaan first set- 
tled the following countries, as is recorded. 
Genesis x. 15-19. 

" And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, 
and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amon- 
ite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and 
the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, 
and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite ; and 
afterward were the families of the Canaan- 
ites, spread abroad. And the border of the 
Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest 
to Gerar unto Gaza ; as thou goest unto So- 
dom and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, 
even unto Lasha.'' 

This clearly points out the nations that 
were dispossessed by the Israelites, when 



54 THK lUHI.E NO Kl'Fl'CE FOR SLAVKRY. 

they came out of E.jrypt aid took possession 
of the Land of Canaan ; and in this trans- 
action was fulfilled the curse pronounced 
upon Canaan. The curse pronounced upon 
Canaan, and the blessing pronounced upon 
Shem, were prophetic. " Blessed be the 
Lord God of Shem, and Canaan, shall be his 
servant." The Israelites descended from 
Shem, and the Canaanites, embracing the 
several nations named as the Girgasites, the 
Hivites, <fec., descended from Canaan, and 
when the Israelites came out of Egypt, they 
drove out the Canaanites, destroyed some of 
them and made servants of others, and they 
possessed their land, and thus was this pro- 
phetic curse accomplished. How plain is all 
this, and how forced and unreasonable must 
be the construction which makes it a justifi- 
cation for American slavery. 

The Cushites, the other branch of Ham's 
family, from wliom descended the colored 
race, settled another section of the country. 
Like the Canaanites, they were a seafaring 
people, and sooner arrived at civilization 
than did the other branches of Noah's family. 
The first great em])ires of Assyria and 
Egypt were founded by them, as were also 
the' republics of Sidon, Tyre and Carthage. 
Our colored race are the descendants of the 
people who founded and sustained those ear- 
ly empires and republics. l>ut the ])oint in 
this argument is, the race now in slavery, are 
not the descendants of Canaan, upon whom 
the curse of servitude was ])ronounced, and, 
of course, that curse is no justification of 
slavery ?s now existing. 



THE BIBLE XO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 00 

2. The present slaveholding race are not 
the descendants of Shem, to whom was ap- 
propriated the service of Canaan. " Canaan 
shall be his servant ;" not the servant of 
some other race. If the text authorizes any 
thing, it authorizes the descendants of Shem 
to use the service of the descendants of Ca- 
naan ; it does not authorize any other race 
to enslave them ; nor does it authorize the 
Canaanites to enslave each other. Who 
then are the present race of slaveholders ? 
Are the Shemites ? It cannot be proved. 
The Jews and the Arabs or Ishmaelites, are 
the only people on the face of the earth who 
can, with any certainty claim to have descen- 
ded from Shem. The slaveholders of this 
country are more likely to be the descend- 
ants of poor Canaan who was cursed. The 
Canaanites Avere not all destroyed by the 
Israelites ; indeed they left many nations un- 
subdued, and were mingled with them and 
were corrupted by them. Repeated and 
bloody wars raged between them for many 
centuries. Where are the descendants of 
these nations now ? I answer as follows : — 

These people called Cannaanites in the 
Scriptures, are known in history by the name 
of Phoenicians, and it is said of them that 
they began to colonize in the time of the 
Hebrew Judges, and their first settlements 
were Cyprus and Rhodes ; thence they 
pushed into Greece, Sicily, Sardinia and 
Spain. See Taylor's History. It is then 
probable that the Anglo-Saxon race came 
originally from the Canaanites or Phoenici- 
ans of profane history, and these are the 



5(1 THE BIBLK NO RrFUfJK FOR SLAVERY. 

people upon whom the cur?e was pronounced. 

This presents shivehoklers as takinp: ad- 
vantage of a curse pronounced upon them- 
selves, as a justification for enslaving another 
race. 

3. Wave the facts set forth above, and 
admit that the curse imposes slavery, and 
that it involves the colored race, and still 
consequences will follow sufficient to over- 
throw the whole argument built upon it in 
support of American slavery. 

(1.) In such case it would justify enslaving 
the whole race. If the argument proves it 
right to enslave any part of the race, it 
proves it right to enslave tlie whole. It 
would be right, therefore, to enslave every 
free colored person in this land, and in every 
other land ; it must be right to plunder Af- 
rica of all her sons and daughters until the 
last descendant of Ham is chattelized. 

(2.) It must follow that this nation is 
figliting against God, and legislating against 
the fulfilment of divine prophecy. 

If the whole race were devoted to perpe- 
tual slavery by a judicial act of Jehovah, — 
and the whole were thus devoted if any were, 
— why does this nation find fault by declar- 
ing that it is piracy upon the high seas to 
fulfil that supposed judicial decree of Jeho- 
vah. She has done it in a law of Congress, 
which declares tlmt to bring a slave from 
Africa shall be judged piracy and iiunishcd 
by death. 

Has this nation consy/ircd with England 
to defeat the deci-ees of God, punishing with 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE POP. SLAVERY. 57 

death those who do what he has made it 
right for them to do ?. 

(3,) The argument, if allowed, would not 
justify American slavery, as it is not now 
confined to the colored race ; there are mixed 
and white slaves. The argument would jus- 
tify the enslavement of none but the descend- 
ants of Canaan, if they were the colored 
race, which is not the fact. 

But whose descendants are the mixed 
breed ? One third of all the slaves^ in this 
country have Anglo-Saxon blood in their 
veins, and many of them are as white as the 
fairest of the white. Others have descended 
from Indians. Are these the children of 
Canaan upon the assumptions of the argu- 
ments : And does the curse pronounced 
upon Canaan include their enslavement ? 

(4.) This view of the subject, if allowed, 
would subvert all the support for slavery, 
attempted to be derived from the New Tes- 
tament. The New Testament argument rests 
upon the assumed fact that plavery exis ed 
where Jesus Christ and his apostles preached 
and founded Christian churches, and that it 
was not condemned by them, but that per- 
sons were allowed to hold their slaves after 
being converted and received into the church. 
The reply to all this is, that if slavery exis- 
ted where those churches were planted, to 
-w^hom the epistles were addressed, it was not 
the slavery of the colored race. If then 
slavery was sanctioned by the apostles, it 
was not the slavery of the African race, for 
that did not then exist, and consequently, 
their sanction was not based upon the curse 
*3 



58 THE BIBT.F. XO REFrCE FOR ??I.AVERY. 

pronounced upon Canaan. If slavery be 
right independently of the curse pronounced 
upon Canaan, as 'must be the case if the 
apostles sanctioned the slavery of their time 
and place, the right of it must depend upon 
something besides that curse, and to contend 
that slavery is right independently of the 
curse pronounced upon Canaan, is to aban- 
don that as a ground on which to justify hu- 
man bondage. 

4. It was not American slavery nor yet 
any thing like it, that the posterity of Ca- 
naan was subjected to by the curse pronoun- 
ced upon a hapless fatlier. The curse was 
political subjection, political servitude, and 
not chattel slavery. It was shown under the 
first division of this argument, that the pre- 
diction was fulfilled in the overthrow of 
the Canaanites by the Israelites, who were 
the Shemites w^hen they came out ot Egypt, 
and none of these transactions were analagous 
to American slavery, nor can they be plead 
as a justification of the system. The Gibeo- 
nites were made hewers of wood and draw- 
ers of water, but this was not chattel slavery. 
It was a public service ; no Israelite owned 
one of them, nor had he any personal inter- 
terest in one of them, and they were still 
personally free, possessing their own lands, 
living in their own city, occupying their own 
houses, and possessing their own wives and 
husbands, and children. See the transaction 
as recorded Joshua ix. 3-27. They still ex- 
isted and flourislied in the days of David, as 
may be seen by reference to 2. Sam. xxxi. 1 
-i;.' From this last reference, it is seen that 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 59 

these Gibeonites were flourishing in posses- 
sion of political rights, with power to make 
their own treaty with the King of the Israel- 
ites. This proves that they were not the 
subjects of chattel slavery after the Amer- 
ican pattern, and it follows that the curse 
pronounced upon Canaan was not such sla- 
very. 

It has now been shown, first, that the vic- 
tims of American slavery are not the des- 
cendants of Canaan : secondly, that the 
present race of slaveholders are not the des- 
cendants of Shem, in whose favor the curse 
of servitude was pronounced upon Canaan ; 
thirdly, that consequences would follow, if 
the above points were yielded, which would 
be fatal to American slavery as it exists ; 
and, fourthly, that the curse pronounced upon 
Canaan, did not involve chattel slavery or 
any thing analagous to it. In the face of 
these points so clearly established, slavery 
must seek elsewhere for a sanction, or with- 
draw its claim from scriptural support. 

II. The example of Abraham, and other 
patriarchs, is the next resort of slaveholders 
to obtain a sanction of American slavery. 

,In discussing this claim of the advocates 
of slavery, I shall confine myself principally 
to Abraham, as his case will prove decisive 
for or against slavery. As to the conduct of 
Laban, in selling his daughters to Jacob, and 
in giving them Zilpah and Bilhah to be their 
hand maids, no effort is necessary to prove 
that there was nothing analagous to Amer- 
ican slavery involved in the transactions. 
If it were clearly slavery itself, it would 



GO THE in CLE no refugc for slaveuy. 

not prove that, or any othor slavery to be 
morally right, since the transactions lack 
the endorsement of heaven. The transac- 
tions are recorded as facts transpiring in the 
life of Jacob, but tliere is no endorseniont of 
the character or conduct of La))an, and his 
conduct cannot bo plead as an example to bo 
followed, or as a justification of any system 
or ])racticc. The same is true of much of 
the liistorical part of ihe Bible. 

But in tlie case of Abraham, the subject 
wears a different aspect, as he is clearly pre- 
sented as a representative man, an example 
to be followed, and the friend of God. If 
it could be clearly proved tliat sucli a man 
was a slaveholder, it might have the appear- 
ance of an endorsement of slavery. Now 
what are the facts? They are as follows : — 
*'He had sheep and oxen, and he had asses, 
and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she* 
asses, and camels." Ge?i. xii. IG, 

*' And when Abraham heard that his 
brother was taken captive, he armed his 
trained servants, born in his house, three 
hundred and eighteen.*' Gen. xiv. 14. 

" And ho that is eight days old shall be 
circumcised among you, every man-child in 
vour generations, he that is born in thy 
house, or bought with thy money of any 
stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that 
is born in thy house and he that is bought 
with thy monoy must needs be circumcised.'' 
Gen. xvii., 12,-1 o. 

"And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, 
and men-servants, and women-servants, and 
^ave them to Abraham." Gen. yx. 11. 



THE BIBLE KO KEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. Gl 

We now have before us all the essential 
proof that Abraham was a slaveholder, for 
if the above texts do not prove it, it is not 
proved b}^ any other circumstance that may 
be mentioned in his history ; as the transac- 
tions in the case of Hagar, Gen, xvi. 1-9 ; 
and in his swearing of his servant, in rela- 
tion to procuring a wife for his son Isaac, 
Gen. xxiv. 1-4. 

The question is can there be found in any 
or all of these facts, the slightest justifica- 
tion of American slavery ? No ; must be 
the decisive answer. 

1. If it were clear that xlbraham was a 
slaveholder, wliich is not admitted, it would 
be no justification of slavery any where, at 
any time, much less of American slavery at 
the zenith of the nineteenth century. The 
argument can be conclusive in support of the 
right of slaveholding, only upon the suppo- 
sition that every thing which Abraham did, 
was not only right for him at the time and 
in the circumstances, but also right to be fol- 
lowed as an example by all men, during all 
time, and in all circumstances. If what was 
right for Abraham, in his time and his cir- 
cumstances, is not necessarily right for all 
men now, in our circumstances, the fact that 
Abraham held slaves, does not prove it right 
for us to hold slaves now. Again, if all that 
Abraham did was not right, the fact that he 
held slaves, cannot prove slaveholding right, 
for if he did some things v\4iich were wrong, 
this act of slaveholding may have been one 
of those wrong things ; and if he held slaves 
wrongfully, it cannot prove it right for us to 



t)2 THE BIBI.K NO RF.FCGE FOR SLAVERY. 

hold slaves. It cannot he pretended that 
Abraham's slaveholding, allowin^^ it, has any 
special endorsement by heaven, and there- 
fore it cannot be inferred that it is right, only 
on the ground that every thing which he did 
was right. It takes both the above points 
to make the argument good, but both points 
cannot be sustained. It must be admitted 
that what was innocent in Abraham at his 
time and in his circumstances, is not innocent 
now in our circumstances ; or else that he 
did what was wrong then ; and if either of 
these points be admitted, allowing him to 
have been a slaveholder, it cannot prove that 
slaveholding is right now. The argument 
must stand thus : — All that Abraham did 
was riglit, and what was right in Abraham 
is right in us in this land and at this time. 
But Abraham held slaves ; and therefore it 
is right for us to hold e^laves now. Let this 
mode of reasoning be applied to other facts 
recorded in the history of the Patriarch. 

Twice did Abraham practice duplicity, if 
not falsehood, by saying that his wife was 
his sister. Gni. xii. 18, a??f/ xx. 2. 

Again, Abraham, at tlio request of his fruit- 
less wife, Sarah, took 11 agar a hand-maid, a 
servant girl, to his bosom and bed that he 
might have children by her. Was this right? 
and if so, would it be riglit for church-me.n- 
bers to practice the sanu! thing now ? If the 
fact that Abraham hold slaves, proves it 
right to hold slaves now, the fact that he 
took one of his wife's female slaves to his 
bed and bosom, and had a son by her, must 
prove it right lor slavchuklers to practice 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 68 

the same economy now. I do not know that 
slaveholders will object to the conclusion, 
and no doubt many practice it, but the moral 
sense of all the other portions of the Chris- 
tian world is against it, and it cannot be al- 
lowed. 

But the above is not all, for we read that 
" Abraham gave all that he had to his son 
Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines 
which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, 
and sent them away from Isaac his son^ while 
he yet lived, eastward unto the east coun- 
try." Gen. xoov. 5, 6. There is clear proof 
that Abraham had concubines, which is not 
allowable under the gospel, and which the 
Christian church has never allowed in any 
age. If then Abraham practiced what is 
clearly condemned by the Gospel, it is in 
vain that the slaveholders appeal to him as 
an example of slaveholding, in justification 
of American slavery. His example is seen 
in some things to be opposed to the Gospel, 
and cannot be admitted as conclusive evi- 
dence of what is right. 

2. It is perfectly plain that there was 
nothing in the relation subsisting between 
Abraham and his servants,analagous to Amer- 
ican slavery. It has been shown that, if 
slavery had existed, it would be no justiiica- 
tion of American slavery, but it shall now 
be shown that there was no slavery in the 
case. Where is the proof that Abraham's 
servants were chattel slaves ? 

(1.) It is not found in the word servant, 
for this is applied to all classes of laborers 
and dependents. It is not necessary at this 



64 TIIR niBLE .so REFUGE FOP. SLAVERY. 

point to resort to criticism, but only to show 
no \r the word is used generally in the lan- 
guage of those times. Abaham called liim- 
seU the servant of tlie three angels that vis- 
itL'd him. Gen. xviii. 3. He could not have 
designed to have expressed the idea of a 
slave. " Lot called himself the servant of 
the angels which led him out of the city. 
Gen. xix. 1-9. Jacob called himself the Ser- 
vant of Esau. Gen. xxx. 5. But the re- 
verse of tiiis would be true if the word ser- 
vant meant slave. " And Isaac answered 
and said unto Esau, behold,! have made him 
thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to 
him for servants." Gen. xxvii. 37. The 
children of Esau were not given to the chil- 
dren of Jacob as slaves, and servant means 
only inferiority or political subjection. 
Pharoah is said to have made a feast to all 
his servants, Gen. xi, 20, but it will not be 
pretended that slaves are intended. Kings 
do not m'^dvc feasts to slaves upon their birth 
days. All subjects were the servants of 
their kings, and even the highest officers of 
the army, were, in the language of the times, 
the servants of the sovereigns ; it is plain 
therefore that the fact tliat Abraham had 
servants, does not prove that he was a slave- 
holder. 

(2) Tlie proof that Abraham was a slave- 
holder is not found in the fact that he had 
servants bought with his money. In tliose 
times all the people were the servants of 
their ])etty kings, and persons might be trans- 
ferred from one prince to another lor money, 
without supposing they were chattel slaves. 



THE BIBLE SO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 65 

During tlie Revolutionary war, the English 
Government hired an army of Germans, for 
which they stipulated to pay a given price 
per head. They were as much bought with 
King George's money, as Abraham's servants 
were bought with his money, but they were 
not chattel slaves. Abraham possessed of 
such great wealth as he was, was compelled 
to have servants, and leading a wandering 
life, amid hostile nations, it was necessary 
that he should have servants that were truly 
attached to him and his interests. To secure 
such servants, he may have purchased cap- 
tives, to make them his free attendants, which 
would attach them to him. This is much 
more rational than to suppose he could buy 
them as chattel slaves, and hold them against 
their will, in his circumstances. 

(3) The proof that Abraham was a slave- 
holder is not found in the fact that he had 
servants born in his house. Abraham had 
no house, in our use of the word, but dwelt 
in a tent ar d led a wandering life. By being 
born in his house, is meant, born in his family 
or among his attendants. With attendants 
enough to take care of his flocks and herds, 
and to protect, as a guard, his person and 
great wealth, there must have been many 
servants born in his house ; that is, among 
his attendants and followers, but where is 
the proof that they were his personal pro- 
perty, his chattel slaves ? 

(4) The proof that Abraham was a slave- 
holder is not found in the fact that he had 
men servants and maid servants given to 
him by Abimelech, as above quoted. Abim- 



'^6 Tllli DIDI.li NO UEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

clech gave him sheep and oxen, and as Abra- 
ham probably had as many before, as he had 
servants to watch over, the attendants were 
transferred, and became Abraham's follow- 
ers by their own consent ; and as they were 
both kings, it was only a transfer of subjects 
from one government to another, and not a 
giftof chattel slaves. It is clear then that 
there is no proof that Abraham was a slave- 
holder. , but it shall now be shown that there 
is proof upon the face of the record that he 
was not a slaveholder, in anything like the 
sense of American slavery. 

(1) His three hundred and eighteen trained 
servants which were born in his house, could 
not have been slaves in the sense of Ameri- 
can slavery. Whatever they were, their ad- 
herence to Abraham must have been volun- 
tary. They constituted his army, and a 
brave army were they, under a brave leader, 
whea he led them to the rescue of Lot and 
the other captives, and slew the armies of 
four kings, and took the spoils. It is men- 
tioned in particular on this occasion, he 
armed the three hundred and eighteen train- 
ed servants '' that were born in his own housc.'^ 
He doubtless had other attendants at this 
time, liut these were taken as more reliable 
in tlie hour of danger in a foreign expedition, 
than those not born in his house, who had 
more recently joined him. The latter would 
most naturally be left as a home guard in 
the absence of the king and the principal 
army. Had any of them been chattel slaves, 
how easy could they have walked away? 
Would a slaveholder of the South ))resume 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 07 

to arm three hundred slaves and lead them 
into Canada, to recapture prisoners and 
goods that had been taken away ? Abraham 
must have pursued those kings not less than 
a hundred and thirty miles, through a wild 
country. How easily could his slaves have 
escaped had they been slaves held against 
their Avills, as our American Slaves ; and 
how unsafe would an American slaveholder 
feel alone in the midst of three hundred 
armed slaves. Again how easily could those 
left at home have made their escape in the 
absence of their master. There were no 
patrols iken to pick them up, no blood- 
hounds to pursue and run them down, and 
no fugitive slave law to carry them back. 

2. Abraham said to God, "To me thou 
hast given no seed : and lo, one born in my 
house is mine heir." Gen., xv. 3. This was 
before the birth of Ishmael. 

Those born in his house then, could not 
have been slaves or they would not have 
been his heirs. 

3. Once more, Abraham's oldest servant 
ruled over all that he had, and was charged 
with the important business Of negociating 
with his distant kindred for a wife for his 
son Isaac. The business was committed to 
him under the solemnities of an oath. Gen. 
xxiv. 1 — 5. 

Was he a slave ? Have southern planters 
slaves that can be trusted, not only with the 
care of all their estates at home, but who 
can be sent on a foreign embassy with a train 
of ten horses, and with jewels of silver, and 
jewels of gold, and raiment, and other prec- 



68 THK HIBLE NO RP:FL'GE KOK SLAVIIRV. 

ions thinnrs? Gen. xxiv. 10, i^d. It is per- 
fectly liuiicrouj^ to suppose, that persons who 
were trusted with such responsibilities, bore 
any analoiry to southern slaves. 

it is believed the record has now been 
purged from every vestige of Abrahaniic 
slavery, and it remains to look after that 
said to have been established by Moses, the 
great law giver under God. 

II. The Jewish ])olity as established by 
Moses, under (iod, is the linal resort of slave- 
holders to iind an endorsement of American 
Slavery within the lids of the Old Testament. 
That there is much legislation concerning 
masters and servants, and that servitude, of 
some sort is tolerated, modified and regula- 
ted, it would be vain to deny. But that 
American Slavery is found upon the record, 
or anytliing analagous to it, is denied. Be- 
fore entering upon the examination of those 
provisions which some suppose involve the 
princi})le of chat'tel slavery, it may be well 
to state a few^ leading general principles, 
Avhich it will be necessary to keep in view 
during the entire investigation, as having a 
bearing upon the whole subject, and uj)on the 
exposition of each text in ])jirticular. 

1. The system introduced by .Moses, what- 
ever it was in fact, Avas a great improvement 
on all former times and organisms. If there 
are what may be deemed social evils in the 
light of the gospel, and which the gospel cor- 
rects, they were not introduced by Moses, but 
are the lelic of a more ])arbarous state of 
things, which his system did not entirely blot 
out in its ureat work of reformation, thoughit 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOK SLAVERY. (ii) 

curtailed and mitigated every evil. If any 
such supposed evil is found, it will be seen, 
not to have been introduced as a new thing, 
but to be there by way of a modification of 
some previously existing evil, the severity of 
which is averted by legislative restraints 
and protections. 

2. The above remark is peculiarly true 
and forcible in relation to servitude, as tol- 
erated and limited and modified by the laws 
of Moses. The law of Moses no where in- 
troduces a system of servitude as a new thing, 
or new element in society, but treats of it as 
a thing already existing, as an evil to be re- 
strained, and modified. It is not possible 
for a reflecting mind to read the provisions 
touching masters and servants, without see- 
ing, lying back of those mild provisions, a 
more oppressive system, which it corrects, 
modifies and softens. Take it as it stands 
upon the record, and in view of the condition 
of the world, and even the rude state of the 
Israelites, at the time it was introduced, and 
it must be admitted to be a most benevolent 
system, and greatly beneficial to all servile 
classes. It appears to have been introduced 
for the exclusive protection and benefit of 
the servile classes, and not for the benefit of 
the masters. American Slavery will have 
to be greatly modified before even as much 
as this can be said in its favor. 

3. When we examine more particularly in- 
to the several provisions concerning servi- 
tude, we find that every regulation concern- 
ing it, is for the protection and benefit of the 
servant, and not one for the benefit of the 



70 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

master. Not one new right or privilege is 
bestowed upon the master ; he possessed 
every right, and enjoyed every privilege, be- 
fore the law was given which he can claim 
and exercise under it, but it throws around 
him many restraints, and many protections 
around the servant, and secures to bim many 
rights and privileges which he would not be 
likely to enjoy without the law. It is safe 
therefore to say that the whole system was 
designed for the benefit of the servile classes, 
which leaves not a single analogy between 
it and American Slavery, as the legislation 
which gives it existence, is altogether for 
the benefit of the master, conferring all legal 
rights on the master, and taking every legal 
right away from the slave, leaving the slave 
without a legal existence, and entirely un- 
known to the law, only as a personal chat- 
tel, only as a sheep or a horse or an ox has 
a legal existence and is known in law. 

These remarks, if true, and they most cer- 
tainly are, must of themselves settle the en- 
tire argument, and demonstrate, that no jus- 
tification can be found in Jewish servitude 
for American Slavery. I might with entire 
safety rest the argument on these points, but 
I propose not so to do, but only ask the rea- 
der to keep them in view, to carry them along 
through the investigation, for the sake of the 
light they will shed on the general subject, 
and the assistance they will render in coming 
at a right interpret-ation of the several texts 
to be examined. 

The way is now prepared for an examina- 
tion of those parts of the Mosaic code which 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOP. SLAVERY. H 

some suppose teach the principle, and justify 
the practice of American Slavery. 

The method to be pursued is, first, to ex- 
amine each text by itself, and then inquire 
into the general bearings of the whole system 
upon the subject of slavery. 

It will not be necessary to examine every 
text in which the word servant occurs, but 
only such of each class of texts as are regard- 
ed as the strongest proofs of the existence of 
slavery. 

The first allusion to servitude in the Jew- 
ish economy is as follows : '' And the Lord 
said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordi- 
nance of the passover : There shall no stran- 
ger eat thereof: But every man's servant 
that is bought for money, when thou hast 
circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof." 
Exo. xii. 43-45. 

This text was not designed to create or 
justify slavery, if slavery be implied in its 
language. The most that can be made of it, 
is that it takes for granted that there will be 
servants bought with money, and hired ser- 
vants, without instituting, providing for, or 
sanctioning either system of service. It 
does not refer to servitude as a thing to be 
established' by the new system, but as a thing 
already existing, without bestowing upon it 
either sanction or censure. 

It does not necessarily imp]y the existence 
of slavery. The only proof that slavery ex- 
isted, is found in the fact that servants were 
bought with money. It will not be pretend- 
ed that hired servants were slaves ; we have 
therefore only to settle the case of servants 



i)i THE BIBLK NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERr. 

bought with money. The assumption that 
servants bought with money were chattel 
slaves is founded upon the supposition that 
the language of the Jewish law is to be inter- 
preted by our usages. Their language was 
not borrowed from our usages, and cannot 
be safely explained by them. If it were 
first pi-oved that slavery existed, then it 
might be safe to infer that the expression, 
servants bought with money, refers to slaves. 
Such language in a statute of one of our slave- 
holding States, would doubtless be so con- 
strued. It being adrjdtted that such a class 
as chattel slaves existed, the language might 
be conclusive evidence that the legislature 
referred to them ; but the question is not to 
which of two admitted classes does the lan- 
guage refer ? but was there any such class as 
chattel slaves? and on this question tiie evi- 
dence is entirely insufficient. The assump- 
tion that there was such a class, is necessary 
to justify such a construction of the law, and 
this very construction of the law, is the only 
proof there was such a class. This is argu- 
ing in a circle ; it is assuming the main pro- 
position to be proved, and then ort'ering in 
proof of that proposition a conclusion drawn 
trom the assumption The language, "ser- 
vant bought with thy money,'' cannot prove 
that a chattel slave is meant, only upon the 
supposition that no person can be bought u ith 
money, without being a chattel slave, which 
is false upon the very face of the record. It 
is only necessary to show that things and 
persons were bought with money, without be- 
coming subject to the incidents of property 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY^ 73 

or chattlc slavery, to settle the whole ques- 
tion so far as the meaning of buy and bought 
is concerned. The word buy, in scripture 
language, m^ans to g^t, gain, acquire, ob- 
tain, possess ; and when bought with 
money is the expression, it denotes merely 
the means by which the thing was obtained. 
A few quotations will settle this qestion, 

1. The Jews bought and sold their lands 
for money, which lands were not, and could 
not be permanently alienated by such sale 
and purchase. They might be redeemed at 
any time, and if not redeemed, they must re- 
vert at the Jubilee. The price was to be 
according to the number of years before the 
jubilee when lands were sold and bought, as 
the following text shows : 

" And if thou sell aught unto thy neigh- 
bor, or buyest aught of thy neighbor's hand, 
ye shall not oppress one another : 

" According to the number of years after 
the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbor, 
and according unto the number of years of 
the fruits he shall sell unto thee : 

" According to the multitude of years thou 
shalt increase the price thereof and accord- 
ing to tho fewness of j^ears thou shalt di- 
minish the price of it : for according to the 
number of the years of the fruits doth he sell 
unto thee." Levi, xxv, 14-16.. 

The land was sold and bought for money, 
and yet no title was given or obtained to it, 
but only a limited possession. That posses- 
sion might be for one, five, or ten years or 
more, as the sale was distant from the time 
of the jubilee. In scripture language it was 
4 



1 4 IHt iJihl.K .\»> i'.r.Kl'GE FOR slLAlEKV, 

buying and sclliiig, yet in our language, it 
was no oale, but a lease for a term of years. 
If then land could })e bought for money, 
without acquiring the right of property, but 
only the right of possession and increase for 
a time ; it follows that men could be bought 
for money without acquiring in them the 
right of property, but only a right to their 
labor. A man gave anotiier possession of 
his land, with the right of all the increase 
for a given number of years, when it must 
return to him, and this is c?lled selling and 
buying it, in scripture language. Irfo a man 
agrees to serve another for a valuable con- 
sideration, paid to him in advance, and in 
scripture language he is said to sell liimself, 
and the other is said to buy him. If land 
could be bought for money, without obtain- 
ing the right of property ki it, men could be 
bought for money without acquiring the 
right of property in them. If land could 
be bought for money without subjecting it 
to all the incidents and liabilities of land 
bought for money under the laws of the 
United States, then men could be bought for 
money, without subjecting them to all the 
incidents and liabilities of men bought for 
money under the laws of the slave states of 
this country. The conclusion is perfectly 
clear that the simj)le fact that servants are 
said to have been bought with money, does 
not prove that they were chattel slaves. 

2. Hebrew servants v,ere bought with 
money and it is admitted on all hands, that 
they were not chattel slaves. 

*' If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. t5 

shall he serve ; and in the seventh he shall 
go out free for nothing." Exo. xxi. 2. 

The man is clearly bought in the sense of 
Jewish law, and yet he clearly owns himself 
again on the seventh year and makes his own 
appropriation of himself thereafter. This 
buying men, instead of proving American 
slavery, would overthrow the whole system 
if incorporated into the slave code. If 
slaves are held by right of the Mosaic law 
they should have the privileges of that law. 

" If thy brother by thee be waxen poor 
and be sold unto thee, thou shall not compel 
him to serve as a bond servant. Levi, xxv. 
39. (For the meaning of bond servant see 
hereafter on verses 44-46.) 

"If a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee 
and thy brother by him wax poor, and sell 
himself unto the stranger and sojourner by 
thee, or to the stock of the strangers fam- 
ily." Verse 47. 

A man is here spoken of as selling himself, 
but that is not now the point. Also a dis- 
tinction is made between a jew thus sold, 
and a bond-servant, in the 39th verse, but 
that difference is not now the question, but 
shall be attended to in its place. The only 
point is that Jews were bought and sold un- 
der the Mosaic law, in the sense of buy and 
sell in the language of that law. This the 
texts above quoted clearly prove. But Jews 
could not be chattel slaves, for two reasons. 
First, the Jubilee set every one of them free. 
" Ye shall proclaim liberty throughout the 
land unto all the inhabitants thereof." Lev. 
xxv. 20. " He shall be with thee, and shall 



7<> THE mni.R xo nEHT.r, for slavery. 

serve thee unto tlic year of Jubilee, and then 
shall he dc])art from thee, both he and his 
children ^vilh him." Verse 40-41. Second- 
ly, every Jew had a right in the soil, and 
must be returned to its jjossession and enjoy- 
ment at the Jubilee. " In the year of this 
Jubilee ye shall return every man to his pos- 
session." Verse 13. " Ye shall return every 
man unto his possession, and ye shall return 
every man unto his family." Verse 10. 
The point is then clear that no Jew could 
be a chattel slave, in the sense of American 
slavery, for the two reasons that all were 
free the seventh year, or at fatherest every fif- 
tieth year, and all at the same time were re- 
turned to a freehold estate. The argument 
then stands thus : — Jews were bought and 
sold for money ; but Jews could not be chat- 
tel slaves, after the pattern of American 
slavery ; and, therefore, the simple fact that 
servants were bought Avith money, does not 
and cannot prove the existence of chattel 
slavery. 

3. Wives were bought for money, or in 
exchange for other connnodities, and yet it 
would not be regarded as sound to argue 
from thence that they were chattel slaves, or 
the absolute property of their husbands, in 
our sense of property. 1 will open this ar- 
gument with a remarkable statute on the 
su])ject. 

" And if a man sell his daughter to be a 
maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men- 
servants do. 

" If she please not her master, who hath 
betrothed her to himself, then Phall he let her 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 77 

be redeemed : to sell her unto a strange na- 
tion he shall have no power, seeing he hath 
dealt deceitfully with her. 

^' And if he have betrothed her unto his son, 
he shall deal with her after the manner of 
daughters. 

" If he take him another wife, her food, 
her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall 
he not diminish. 

" And if he do not these three unto her, 
then shall she go out free without money." — 
Exo. xxi, 7-11. 

The comment of Dr. Adam Clarke on the 
text is so peculiar that I will introduce it. 
Of a man's selling his daughter the Dr. says, 
" This the Jews allowed no man to do but in 
extreme distress — when he had no goods, 
either movable or immovable left, even to the 
clothes on his back ; and he had this privil- 
ege only while she was unniarriageabie. It 
may appear strange that such a law should 
have been given ; but let it be remembered 
that this servitude could extend, at the ut- 
most, only to six years ; and that it was 
nearly the same as in some cases of appren- 
ticeship among us, where the parents bind the 
child for seven years, and have from the mas- 
ter so much per week during that period'" 

Where is the wonder that such a statute 
should have been given, if the code, of which 
it is a part, contained and enforced the sys- 
tem of chattle slavery, after the American 
model ? The law must authorize the con- 
stant sale of somebodies daughters, not for 
six years, but life long, to contain anything 
like American slavery, and it is no wonder 



• 8 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR KLIVERV. 

to me, that a man should be authorized to 
aeU his own daughters, rather than another 
man s daugtiters. I am not sure that the Dr. 
is right in saying that the sale was only for 
six years. He no doubt grounds this upon 
the second verse which concerns men serv- 
ants, but it is said of tlie daughter sold as 
above, she shall not go out as the men ser- 
vants do, which was at the end of the sixth 
year. 

As to what Dr. Clarke says of its being 
like an apprenticeship, if the remark was 
made of bought servants in general, I have 
no doubt it would be much nearer the truth, 
than to suppose it was like American slavery. 
But I believe he has entirely mistaken the 
design and spirit of the statute regulating 
the sale of daughters, as above, and will 
now state my own humble opinion of the text. 
I believe the sale of daughters named in the 
text, was exclusively for wives. It is true 
the language is, " If a man sell his daughter 
to be a maidservant, but she was no doubt at 
the same time sold as a prospective wife of 
the purchaser or his son. According to Dr. 
Clarke, the sale was allowed only while the 
daughter was unmarriageable, and only in 
case of extreme poverty. Of course such 
pales would take place only among the poor- 
est of the laboring classes ; and such pur- 
chases would be made, as a general rule, 
only by the laboring classes, as the rich 
would seek wives for ihcmselves and sons 
among the rich. As the daughter sold be- 
longed to the laboring class, and was sold 
to a purchaser of the laboring class, she must 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. i\) 

be expected to labor both before and after 
the sale, Slie is then sold asamaid-servaut, 
bat is sold at the same time as the prospec- 
tive wife of the man who buys her, or of his 
son. She is an apprenticed wife on trial, 
and hence the oppression, " if she please not 
her master who hath betrothed her." He 
buys her unmarriageable, aird she serves a 
few years and becomes a woman, and he finds 
she will not answer for a wife, and the de- 
sign of the law is to provide for just this 
case. He has not yet married her, or the 
case would fall under the law of divorce. 
There are two cases provided for as follows : 
(1.) "If she please not her master who 
hath betrothed her to himself," that is the 
purchaser, a provision is made to protect her. 
The manner in which this is introduced in 
connection with the sale, without explana- 
tion, proves that, in the eye of the law, to 
purchase, was to betroth. It is taken for 
granted that he who has purchased a female 
under that law, had betrothed her To be- 
troth is to contract, in order to a future mar- 
riage. If after he has thus purchased, thus 
betrothed, she please him not, if he find that 
she will not make him such a wife as he 
thinks he needs, he shall let her be redeemed; 
that is, her father may buy her back, or any 
of his friends that may desire her, may re- 
deem her by paying what he gave for her, 
after deducting a fair proportion for what 
she may have earned as a servant. He shall, 
have no right to sell her to a strange nation, 
Init only to take the price he paid for her as 
a redemption by her friends. 



bO THE RIBLE NO REFUGE FOK Sf-AVETrrr. 

(2.) In case slie had bccii betrothed to his 
aon, and the son did not like her, when she 
became marriageable, the law provides for 
her protection. The father is held respon- 
sible to treat her as a daughter, and the 
son to discharge to her all the duties of a 
husband, and if this is not attended to, she 
shaH go out free without money. That is, 
the purchaser shall not be entitled to receive 
back the money he paid for her, but she shall 
be free without being redeemed. 

Here then is provision for selling persons 
without making chattel slaves of tliem. 
They were bought witli money, without be- 
ing chattels personal, as are the slaves of this 
country, and therefore the fact of selling 
and buying under the Mosaic law, docs not 
])rove that slavery existed under that law. 
But the ol)j«ict of quoting the above text has 
licen to prove that wives were bought, and 
this it proves beyond doul)t. That I have 
not mistaken the law, in supposing the sale 
was a ])etrothing of the female sold, is clear 
from the fact that in other cases female ser- 
vants went out at tlie end of the sixth year, 
as is seen from Exo. xv. 12-17. From these 
references it is clear that according to the 
general law, female servants were released 
at the end of the sixth year, but in the case 
under consideration, it is said they shall not 
go out as the men servants do; in the place 
of tins another provision is made, founded 
upon the ground that they arc betrtohcd. 

But there is other proof that wives were 
bought. Jacob bought both his wives of 
Laban their father. Gen. xxix. 18-27. 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 81 

David purchased Michael, Saul's daughter ^^ 
be his wife. 1 Sam. xviii, 27. Shecheix 
son of Hamor the Hivite, wished to purchase 
Dinah, Jacob's daughter for a wife, and of- 
fered any price they should demand. Gen. 
xxxiv. 11-12. Hosea bought a wife an ., 
paid for her, part in silver and the balance 
in barley. Hosea, iii. 2. Boaz said, " Ruth 
the Moabites have I purchased to be my 
wife." Ruth, iv. 10. The word purchased^ 
is rendered bought in the margin. 

Enough has been said to show that it was 
a common thing to purchase wives, that they 
were bought v/ith money. The evidence 
that slavery existed is the fact that servants 
were bought with money, but wives were al- 
so bought with money from which it must 
follow either that the fact that servants were 
bought does not prove that they were slaves, 
or else the fact that wives were bought must 
prove thaf they were slaves. If servants 
were slaves because they were bought, then 
wives were slaves because they were bought. 
If wives were not chattel slaves, though 
bought with money, then servants were not 
necessarily chattel slaves because they were 
bought with money. If a wife could be 
bought with money with becoming a chattel 
slave, then buying with money does not con- 
stitute or prove the existence of chattel sla- 
very, and the argument in proof that slavery 
existed, founded upon the fact that servants 
were bought with money, must fall to the 
ground. It must be true that servants were 
not slaves because they were bought, or else 
that wives were slaves bemuse fhey^cere bous^ht, 
"'4 



82 TMK BIBLE NO RKFUiiE FOR SLAVERY. 

If the ground be taken, as a last resort to 
support slavery, that such wives as were 
bought with money, were the absolute prop- 
erty of their husbands, and were so regarded 
and treated in that rude state of society, 
nothing will be gained. As the object is to 
prove that American slavery is right, the 
argument can be sound only upon the ground 
that what was practiced and tolerated then, 
must be right now. If all the facts alleged 
were admitted, viz., that chattel slavery did 
exist under the Mosaic code, it would not 
prove American slavery right, only upon the 
ground tliat what that code allowed is now 
right. But that code allowed parents to sell 
their daughters for wives and tlierefore such 
a practice must be right now. To make any 
argument good, we have got to take with it, 
all the consequences which necessarily fol- 
low from the premises. If servants were 
chattel slaves because they were bought, 
wives were slaves because they were bought. 
If it is right now to buy slaves because 
slaves were bought under the Mosaic law, it 
must be right to buy wives now because 
wives were bought under the Mosaic law. 
And if it be right now to hold persons in 
chattle slavery because it was done under 
the Mosaic law, it must be right, not only to 
buy wives, but also to hold them as chattel 
slaves, because it was practiced under the 
Mosaic law. Some of the lords of creation 
may be ready to admit all these consequen- 
ces, and be glad to have it so, yet the better 
half of humanity will be so unanimous in 
repudiating the doctrine, that the ariiumont, 



THR BIBLE XO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 83 

carrying with it such consequences, cannot 
be sustained. If then it would now be re- 
garded as a violation of the principles of 
the Gospel for parents to sell their daughters 
for wives, and for men to buy wives for them- 
sefves and sons to be owned as personal 
chattels, there is no proof in the Mosaic 
law, that American slavery is not a violation 
of the principles of the Gospel. If the one 
was practiced under the law, the other was ; 
and if the one is now right, because it was 
practiced under the law, the ^other must be. 

It has been showed that Hebrew servants 
could be held only for the period of six years. 
To this rule there is one exception which 
should be noticed as of some importance. 
The whole provision reads thus : 

" If you buy a Hebrew servant, six years 
he shall serve : and in the seventh he shall 
go out free for nothing. 

" If he came in by himself, he shall go out 
by himself : if he were married, then his wife 
shall go out with him. 

" If his master have given him a wife, and 
she have borne him sons or daughters, the 
wife and her children shall be her master's 
and he shall go out by himself. 

" And if the servant shall plainly say, I 
love my master, my wife, and my children ; 
I will not go out free : 

" Then his master shall bring him unto the 
judges : he shall also bring him to the door, 
or unto the door post : and his master shall 
bore his ear through with an awl ; and ho 
shall serve him for ever." Exo. xxi. 2-6. 

On this provision I remark, 



84 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR PLAVERY. 

1. It was clearly instituted for the benefit 
and protection of the servant, and not for 
the master's benefit. It confers no ri^ht, no 
discretionary power upon the master, save 
the right of retaining the wife and children 
in a given case, but it does bestow a discre- 
tionary power upon the servant. It is this, 
the servant sells himself for six years, and 
no more — " ^^ix years shall he serve, and in 
the seventli he shall go out free" — but the 
law gives the servant the power to extend 
the contract at the end of the sixth year, to, 
" for ever,'' as our translaters have rendered 
it, but which I suppose means unto the Jubi- 
lee. The master has no power to hold him 
another day, if he wishes to leave at the 
end of the sixth year ; he has no power to 
turn him away ; if the servantjwishes to stay, 
he is compelled to retain him. Thus is it 
seen that the law is all on the side of the 
servant, and this does notjplook much like 
American slavery. 

2. The provision is clearly to protect the 
servant against being separated from his 
wife and children, in the case where the mas- 
ter has the riglit of retaining them. This is 
in case the master has given him a wife. 
This wife might be the master's daughter, 
for which the servant may be supposed not 
to have paid the customary dowcry. Or the 
Avife may be a Hebrew maid servant, having 
one, two, three or four of the six years yet 
to serve ])ofore she can go out Or, what is 
more ])roVni))le, the wife may bo a servant 
jVom tlie Gentiles, a proselyte, bound to servo 
until the jubilc'C. In either of these cases, 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 85 

it would be doing violence to the marriage 
relation to send tlie servant away without 
his wife and chileren, and hence the law pro- 
vides that the servant may demand an exten- 
sion of the contract of his servitude " for 
ever," that is, as I understand it, to the jubi- 
lee. Let but this provision be introduced 
into American slavery, and let the separation 
of husbands and wives, parents and children 
be thus interdicted, and it will soon destroy 
the whole system. How strange it is that 
what would overthrow the whole system of 
slavery if introduced and enforced, should 
be relied upon for its support ! 

3. Whatever may be thought of the law 
under consideration, in all other aspects, it 
is certain that the service is voluntarily en- 
tered into, on the part of the servant, after 
trying it six years, and this destroys all an- 
alogy to x\.merican slavery. The proceeding 
of boring the servants ear with an awl, is 
merely a prescribed form of recording the 
testimony in such cases, and has no bearing 
on the main point at issue. I will not crit- 
icise upon the words " for ever," which I sup- 
pose means until the jubilee, as this will 
come up for consideration hereafter in con- 
nection with another text. 

The next resort of slavery is to the fol- 
lowing provision of the law. 

" If\ man smite his servant or his maid, 
with a rod, and he die under his hand ; he 
shall surely be punished. Nothwithstand- 
ing, if he continue a day or two, he shall not 
be'punished " for he is his money." Exo, xxi. 
20-21, 



80 THE BIBLE No REFLT.E FOR SLAVERY. 

This law docs not institute or establish 
slavery, or any kind of servitude. It mere- 
ly refers to it, for the purpose of settling? a 
rule of jurisprudence, applicable in peculiar 
cases. It assumes the fact that there are 
masters and servants, but it does not estab- 
lish, legalize or justify the relation, l)ut it 
provides for the administration of justice 
between the parties in a given case. The 
only proof whicli the text can be supposed 
to furnish in support of slavery, must depend 
upon two circumstances. The fact that the 
master presumes to smite the servant with a 
rod, and the fact that the servant is declared 
to be the master's money. These two points 
need examination. 

Does the fact that the law presumes that 
a master may smite his servant with a rod 
that lie die, ])rove that the servant is a chat- 
tel slave ? Surely not. There is no proof 
that the smiting is in any sense authorized 
or justified by this or any other law. Smi- 
ting itself is not justified, even if it be not 
unto death. The laws of our slaveholding 
states authorize masters directly to punish 
their slaves, but no such li))erty is given in 
the Scriptures. AV'e challenge the produc- 
tion of the first text which authorizes a mas- 
ter to inflict corporal correction upon a ser- 
vant. Parents are required to correct their 
cliildren. This principle is contained in all 
the following texts. Deut. viii. 5 ; Prov. 
iii. 12 ; xiii. 2-i ; xix. 18 ; xxiii. 13-14 ; xxix, 
lo-17 ; Ilcb. xii. 7-l>. SVhile the scriptures 
are so full and explicit on the subject of tlio 
correction of ohildn'ii by parents, tlicre is 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 8t 

not one text which requires masters, or even 
authorizes them to punish their servants. 
Again, the law provides that parents, who 
have a son whom they cannot govern, may 
hand him over to the public authorities to be 
judged and punished, but there is no such 
provision for masters, who have disobedient 
servants. See Deut. xxi. 18-22. The pun- 
ishment of servants is without lawful author- 
ity and is always unlawful. If it be sup- 
posed that the fact that it is made punishable 
for a master to kill his serva^nt with a rod, 
renders it lawful to beat him with a rod, 
provided he does not kill him ; the reply is, 
that the same mode of reasoning will prove 
it^awful for men to fight, provided they do 
not kill or disable each other. The 18th 
and 19th verses provide for a case where two 
men strive together, and one smites the other 
with a stone or his fist. Will it be conten- 
ded that the striving is thereby rendered 
lawful ? Certainly not. No more is it ren- 
dered lawful for a master to beat his servant 
with a rod, because the law provides that he 
shall be punished if he kills him while doing 
so. 

The fact then that the scriptures take it 
for granted that a master is liable to get in 
a passion and smite his servant that he die, 
and provides for his punishment, does not 
give the least countenance ta slavery. 

But " he is his money./' This doubtless is 
regarded as the strong hold of slavery. All 
that is necessary for me to prove is that it 
does not necessarily involve chattel slavery, 
and this will be easily aqcomplised. 



88 THE BIBLF, N'O RF.FT'GE TOR SLAVERY. 

1. The statute is a general one, including 
all classes of servants, many of whom, it has 
been seen, were not and could not be chattel 
slaves. The 2Gth and 29th verses are of the 
same general character. If a man smote out 
the eye or the tooth of a servant, he was 
free. These laws protect all kinds of ser- 
vants, Hebrew servants as well as others. 
It has been sliown that Hebrew servants 
were bought with money, and of course, it 
was just as true of these that they were the 
money of their masters as of others. As 
the text affirms of a Hebrew servant as clear- 
ly as of any other, " he is his money," and 
as a Hebrew servant could not be a chattel 
slave, the text affirms that lie is money who 
cannot be a slave, and therefore it cannot 
prove those to be slaves of whom it affirms. 

2. the language is most clearly figurative, 
and can be literally true only in a sense 
which divests it of all proof of chattleship. 

" He is his money." All money in those 
da3's was gold or silver. But the servant 
was neither gold or silver, and was not 
money. A literal translation would strength- 
en this view. The expression, " he is "his 
money" literally translated would read, " his 
silver is he." But a servant is not silver, is 
not money, but flesh and blood and bones, 
body and soul. What then is meant by the 
expression ? Simply this, he has cost the 
master money, the master has the value of 
money in liim, and loses money's value by 
his death. But this is true of all servants 
bought with money, or whoso wages are paid 
in advance, and therefore the expression 



THE BIBLE NU REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 89 

cannot prove that the servant said to be 
money is a chattel slave. 

3. The obvious intention of the whole 
statute, as well as of that particular clause, 
requires no such construction, but the end is 
reached just as clearly and forcibly without 
involving the chattel principle. 

The design of the general statute is to se- 
cure the condemnation of the master in case 
of wilful murder, and thereby furnish greater 
security to the servant ; as well as to secure 
the master against being put to death as a 
murderer, when no murder was intended. 

It is not to be inferred that the killing is 
to be punished as inferior crime, because the 
killed is a servant. The translation perverts 
the sense. The word, nakam translated 
punished, should be rendered avenged. It is 
not the master that is to be avenged, but the 
servants death, which, under the circumstan- 
ces necessarily means that the master shall 
be put to death as a murderer. This word, 
though it occurs repeatedly in the Old Testa- 
ment, is translated punished in no other text, 
but is generally translated avenged and in a 
very few instances, to take vengence or to 
revenge. The word is thus defined in Roy's 
Hebrew and English Dictionary : " JYakam, 
1. He recompensed or paid ; 2. avenged, 
reveno-ed, cut off, as murderers ; 3. vindica- 
ted, advocated, as the cause of another." 
The object of the statute is to secure such 
execution in one ease, and to prevent it in 
another. 

If the master smite his servant with a rod, 
and he die under his hand, the death shall 



90 THE BIHLK NO REFCdE FOR SLAVERY. 

surely be avenged. The instrument is a rod, 
not an axe. A man might kill with an axe, 
without intending it, but not with a rod. If 
the servant died under his hand, and a rod 
only was used, the proof is positive that he 
meant to kill him, and must have done it 
wilfully and by protracted torture. Though 
a man miglit be likely to take some more fa- 
tal instrument, if he meant to kill, yet the 
fact that he did kill with such an instrument, 
is proof positive that he meant to kill, and 
the avenger is authorized to smite him as. a 
murderer. 

Bui suppose the servant does not die un- 
der his hand, but continues a day or two, 
then his death shall not be avenged. And 
why ? Because the evidence is not clear 
that he meant to kill him. He did not kill 
him on the spot, as he would most likely have 
done had he designed to take his life. More- 
over it was only a rod with which he smote 
him, and this is presumptive evidence that he 
did not mean to kill him ; had he designed 
his death, he would have been likely to se- 
lect a more fatal instrument than a rod with 
which to smite. Finally, " he is his ^loney ;'' 
that is, he has a monied interest in him, and 
looses the worth of money by his death, and 
this is an additional proof that he did not 
mean to kill ])im. The design of this state- 
ment, "he is his money," is to show that the 
master's monied intci-est was againt liis kil- 
ling the servant, that he lost money by his 
death, and this is just as clear in the case of 
a Hebrew servant l)ought with money, who 
could not l>e a chattel slave. 'J'ho monied 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 91 

argument is good in the case of any servant, 
whose wages is paid in advance, and as that 
kind of service was common, the idea of 
chattel slavery is not in the least involved. 
It is no part of the design of the text to 
create, legalize or justify the right of prop- 
erty in man, but merely to use the fact of a 
monied interest in a man, as collateral evi- 
dence that murder was not intended, and 
this object is secured as well without the 
assumption of chattel slavery as it is by re- 
sorting to that terrible position. It need 
only to be remarked that the law in question 
provides only for the case, as a public of- 
fence. There can be no question that the 
servant, in case of abuse or injury, might 
appear in the court against his master, and 
receive justice at the hands of the judges, in 
an action for private damages. 

I now approach the last resort of slavery 
within the lids of the Old Testament, to 
which it must be expected to cling as a man 
of blood to the horns of the altar, when the 
lifted arm of the avenger is seen near at hand. 
The law in question reads as follows : 

" Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, 
which thou shalt have, shall he of the heathen 
that are round about you ; of them shall ye 
buy bondmen and bondmaids. 

'•Moreover, of the children of the strangers 
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye 
buy, and of their families that are with you, 
which they begat in your land : and they 
shall be your possession. 

" And ye shall take them as an inheritance 
for your children after vou, to inherit them 



92 THE BIRLE NO UEKL'(;E FOR SLAVEUY. 

for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen 
forever : but over your brethren, the child- 
ren of Israel, ye shall not rule one over ano- 
ther with rigor." Lev. xxv. 44—10. 

I might grapple with slavery upon the 
ground of the common translatior, as above, 
and beat it ; but I am not disposed so to do, 
until I shall have exposed its hand in cor- 
rupting the translation. I have already 
made one correction in the common transla- 
tion in tlie preceding text, and as I design to 
ground an argument upon a new translation 
of the present important text, I will explain 
the whole matter at this point. I admit 
there should be strong reasons for departing 
from the common English vertion of the 
Scriptures, a version generally approved and 
allowed to be correct. The translators were 
men of great learning, and executed their 
trust with great al)ility and fidelity, and have 
in general seized upon the very spirit and 
nerve of the original, so far as it can be rep- 
resented by English words ; yet believe 
they were deceived by the spirit of slavery 
into a false translation of the text under con- 
sideration, as perhaps in a few other texts. 
The slave tride Avas in the hight of its ])ro- 
gress at the time the translation took ])lace. 
It had previously attracted the attention of 
Church and State. At first it met with op- 
position from both. The first grant of the 
l)rivilege of bringing slaves to America, was 
by Charles V. in 1517. Tliis appears to 
have been principally secured by tlie repre- 
sentations of Las Casas a priest, and after- 
wards a bishop. Dut after this, Charles re- 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 93 

pented of the countenance he gave the slave 
trade, and Pope Leo X., his cotemporary, de- 
nounced the system, and declared that not 
only the Christian religion, but nature itself 
cried out against a state of slavery." About 
the year 1556 Queen Elizabeth was deceived 
into a permit granted to Sir John Hawkins, 
to bring negros from Africa ; and she charg- 
ed him not to carry them to America without 
their consent. But these scruples were over- 
come by the false glosses put upon this and 
other texts by interested priests, and by the 
great profit of the traffic. Here the matter 
rested, and all took it for granted without 
further examination, that these pro-slavery 
expositions were right, and when King 
Jame's translators commenced their work in 
1607, ihey very naturally adopted the false 
expositions designed to countenance the slave 
trade, and translated the text under consider- 
ation, as well as some others, in the light of 
those false glosses by which they avoided 
coming in contact with the slave trade, then 
in its greatest prosperity in England. 

I will now notice the translation itself. 
The principal errors are as follows : There 
is nothing in the original to justify the words 
" hond-men and bond-maids ;" it should be 
man-servant and woman-servant. Both are 
in the singular, and not plural, in the Hebrew 
text. The word translated bity is most pro- 
perly translated procure. The word trans- 
lated heathen, is properly rendered Gentiles, 
and might be rendered nations. The word 
translated /oret-er cannot bear that rendering 
in this case ; it cannot mean longer than 



94 TUK niBLE X»^ UKFl'GE KoR SLAVERY. 

natural life, and that is never the sense of 
the EnG:lisli word forever. The word ren- 
dered ybrcwr, is k-O'lam, and its proper mcan- 
inj^ is endless, and is correctly rendered /or- 
ever, or to eternity, but here it cannot be un- 
derstood in its full sense. It is used to de- 
note a lonir period, less even than the whole 
of time. Many rites of the Jews were to bo 
observed /brn.Tr, which forever has past and 
ended. A single text will serve as an illus- 
tration of the use of the word in a limited 
sense. '' Bath-shbea said Let my lord king 
David live forever." 1 Kings i. 31. 

This can mean but a short indefinite period, 
for David was then old. It can mean no 
more than a long time, for a man in his cir- 
cumstances. But in the expression, " they 
shall be your bond-men forever," forever can 
mean no more than natural life, and yet it is 
never employed to ex])ress this indefinite 
period. Forever, therefore, does not express 
the sense of the text, and as the period of the 
jubilee was the longest time a person could 
be retained in service by one contract, which 
Avill hereafter be more fully shown, it is cer- 
tain that forever could not extend beyond 
the jubilee, and it is most natural to under- 
stand it as refering to that period, or to some 
period to be fixed upon in the contract, but 
not named in the law. I will now introduce 
a literal translation of the text, and as I have 
no reputation as a Jlebrew scholar to sustain 
one of my own, I have written to Dr. Roy, 
author of Roy's Hebrew and English Dic- 
tionary, for a literal translation of the text 
under consideration, and he has kindlv fur- 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. IJ;") 

uislied me with the following, which he war- 
rants to be correct and literal. 

44. " And thy man servant, and thy woman 
servant, shall be to thee from among the 
Gentiles which are round about you. From 
them ye shall procure a man servant and a 
woman servant. 

45. " And also of the children of Foreign- 
ers that reside with you, from them ye may 
procure of their families which are with them, 
that were born in your land ; they shall be 
to you for a possession, (service.) 

46. " And ye shall choose them for your 
children after you, to preside over them as 
their portion, unto the end of the time (spec- 
ified).''— E03/. 

I think no Hebrew scholar will deny that 
this translation is correct in all essential par- 
ticulars, and if it be so, it follows, not only 
that the translation in the common version 
perverts the sense of the original text to sup- 
port slavery, but that nothing like American 
slavery is found in the law of Moses, when 
it is correctly understood. Take the text as 
it is now spread before the reader, and there 
is clearly no slavery in it ; no human chat- 
tels are presented to the mind, no fettered 
limbs are seen, and no chains clank in the 
ear of humanity. It is certain that the text 
asrendered above, does not and cannot prove 
the existence of chat-tcl slavery ; but still it 
means something, and what does it mean ? 
This is an important inquiry. Every law 
should be considered as designed to secure 
some important end, especially when God is 
the Legislator. This law cannot have been 



Oft inE BIBLE NO REFUfJE FOR SLAVERY. 

desi^Micd to establish a S3'stein of human bond- 
age like American slavery, and must have 
been designed to secure some other end, and 
not only a benevolent end, but one consonant 
with the general design of the whole system 
of which it is a part. It will give additional 
strength to the conclusion, that the establish- 
ment of slavery was not its object, if it can 
be clearly shown that it was designed and 
calculated to secure another benevolent and 
important end. This I will now attempt to 
show. I regard the law in question, in a 
civil point of light, as prescribing a plan of 
naturalization for foreigners ; and in a reli- 
gious point of light, as a system of prosely- 
tism, by Avhich heatlicn were to be reclaimed 
from their idolatry, to the faith and worship 
of the God of xibraham. To show this a 
number of plain facts need to be collected 
and looked at in connection with each other, 
and with reference to their joint bearing on 
this question. 

1. God designed to make of the Jews a 
numerous, wealthy and powerful nation. To 
secure this they must occupy a productive 
country, which he gave them, described as 
'' a land flowing with milk and lionev.'' It 
was necessary also that they shoukl be kept 
from being mingled with other nations, either 
by emigration to other countries, or by a 
large influx of strangers, who should not be- 
come identilied with their religion and 
nationality. It was necessary to keep them 
a distinct people. Further to secure this end, 
their lands were secured forever, beyond 
their power to alienate them, so that every 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 97 

Jew was 4). freeholder in fact, or in prospect, 
A foreigner could r.ot become permanently 
possessed of their lands, and could obtain a 
lasting interest in them only by becoming 
incorporated with some branch of the Jewish 
family, for which proivsion was made. This 
separating and signalizing the Jews had re- 
ference to the execution of God's plan of re- 
deeming mankind, for which it was a prepar- 
atory step. So far all is plain and will not 
be disputed. 

2. The proposed position of the Jewish 
nation, with the means employed to secure it, 
the inalienability of their lands, tended to 
produce certain incidental evils, and a want 
of an element essential to the greatness and 
independence of any people, viz. a numerous 
and well sustained laboring class, beyond 
the actual proprietors of the soil. A free- 
hold interest, is the greatest interest, and the 
cultivation of the soil is and ever must be 
the basis of all other great interests, yet 
there are other great interests that must be 
sustained. The circumstances of the Jews 
tended to produce a want of such a laboring 
class. A few of the influences tending to 
produce this want shall be named. 

(1.) They were all land owners, and none 
need therefore engage in other pursuits than 
cultivating the soil, unless reduced by misfor- 
tune or bad economy. This would produce 
but very few mechanics, and laborers to be 
hired. 

(2.) Such was the richness of their country, 
so great the productiveness of the soil, that 
a large amount of labor could be expended 



98 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVKUV, 

■v\'ith profit to the land owner, Avhile the fact 
that every one was a land owner, tended ta 
render such labor difficnlt to obtain. In 
every prosperous community tliere is needed 
many more laborers than actual landowners, 
some must operate as mechanics, some as mer- 
chants, some must cultivate the lands of the 
unhealthy and widows, some must labor as ad- 
ditional helps to those who cultivate their 
own lands, and others will be needed as 
domestic help, commonly called servants. 

(3.) The religion of the Jews required them 
to devote a large portion of their time to its 
special duties and exercises, rendering more 
laborers necessary to accomplish the same 
amount of labor in a given season. Every 
seventh year was a Sabbath the whole year. 
This was one seventh of all the time, and if 
averaged among the seven years, would be to 
each year just equal to the Aveekly Sabbath. 
For proof of this seventh year rest, see Lev. 
XXV. 3-7. Next was the weekly Sabbath, 
every seventh day. Exo. xx. 8-11. This 
was another seventh of their whole time. 
Then there were three annual feasts ; the 
Passover, which lasted seven days ; the Pen- 
tecost or feast of weeks, which "^lasted seven 
days ; and the fe^st of Tabernacles, which 
lasted eight days. For proof of these feasts 
see Deut.xvi. 3, 10, IG ; Exo. xii. 3, G, 15 ; 
Lev. xxiii. 35, 3G, 39, 41, 42, See also Jose- 
phus. Book III. Ch. X. 

Their national feasts were held in one 
place, the jdacc which the Lord chose, which 
was Jerusalem, and thiiher the tribes went 
up to worship. Exo. xxiv. 23 ; Deut. xvi. 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 99 

16 ; Luke ii. 41, 44. This required long 
journies'on the part of many, as Joseph and 
Marj went one whole day's journey home- 
ward, before they missed their remarkable 
son, so large was the company returning from 
the feast. More time must have been spent 
in the necessary preparations and journey, 
than in the feasts themselves. The feasts 
together occupied twenty-two days, which 
gives the following result. The seventh year 
rest is equal to one weekly Sabbath, or fifty- 
two days in a year. To this add the weekly 
Sabbath, fifty^wo days per year more, mak- 
ing one hundred and four days. To this add 
the three annual feasts, together occupying 
twenty -two days, making a total of one hun- 
dred and twenty-six, which is five days more 
than one entire third of the year occupied in 
religion. To this might be added the time con- 
sumed in going and returning, as above sup- 
posed, and other feasts that might be pointed 
out, as every new moon, and special occasions 
by which it would appear that one half or 
more of the time of the whole male popula- 
tion was occupied with religious matters, but 
it is not necessary to press these additional 
matters, as it would cumber my page with 
many references to establish the several 
points. I have shown positively that over 
one third part of their time was occupied by 
religious matters, and that is sufficient for 
my argument. This must have required an 
increased number of laborers. It should be 
remarked that all that class of servants which 
some suppose to have been slaves, were re- 
quired to observe all these feasts, and 



100 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

Sabbaths. It may be asked how it could be 
expected that they should become great and 
wealthy, with a religion laying so heavy a 
tax upon their time. The answer is plain, in 
the words of the Law^Giver himself. " And 
if ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh 
year ? behold we shall not sow nor gather 
our increase : then 1 will command my bles- 
sing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall 
bring forth fruit for three years." Lev. xxv. 
20, 21. While they obeyed God, the shadow 
of his wing protected and blessed their whole 
land, but when tliey sinned and lost the 
divine blessing, without an abatement of their 
religious taxes, they felt them to be a bur- 
den. The system was not adapted to the 
whole world, embracing all countries and 
climates ; and it was established by God 
only as a preparatory step, to last until the 
time of reformation, when they should pass 
away with what Paul calls ."a 3'oke which 
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." 
But while the system lasted it had to be made 
consistent with itself, and if one part tended 
to produce incidental evils, they had to be 
overcome by the action of some other part. 
One evil wc have seen was a want of a suflB- 
cient numljcr of laborers. This would natu- 
rally and mainly result first, from the inalien- 
ability of their lands, making all the Jews 
land owners ; secondly, from the same fact 
tending to prevent other people from settling 
among them on account of their not being 
able to o])tain a frecliold estate ; thirdly, 
from their religion, wliich consumed so much 
of their time : and fourthly, from the danger 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 101 

to their whole system, which would arise 
from allowing laborers from other nations in 
sufficient numbers to become resident among 
them, without being naturalized and brought 
under the controlling influence of their laws 
and religion,. To overcome this difficulty, 
the celebrated law was introduced, now un- 
der consideration, authorizing them to obtain 
servants from the Gentiles. " Thy man ser- 
vant and thy woman servant shall be to thee 
from among the Gentiles. From them ye 
shall procure a man servant and a woman 
servant." The law has two faces to it, and 
removes two evils at once. 

First, it renders the employment of Gen- 
tiles lawful, and thereby supplying the de- 
mand for laborers, and increases the popula- 
tion. Secondly, it removed a temptation 
to which they would otherwise have been ex- 
posed, to oppress and degrade one another. 
Some in every community will be unfortunate 
or prodigal, and fall into decay, and become 
dependent. This is contemplated in the law, 
verses 35, 36, 39, 42. Owing to the want of 
laborers and domestics, resulting as above, 
the wealthy might have been tempted to keep 
the poor down, for the sake of being able to 
obtain their services ; but this the law pre- 
vents in two waj^s. First, it forbids it in so 
many v^^ords, and secondly, it opens another 
door through which servants can be lawfully 
obtained. Such servants were, by the very 
operation of that law, naturalized and became 
iinally incorporated with the Jewish nation, 
and pessesscd in common with them all iheir 
civil and religious privileges and blessings. 



102 inE BIBLE NO RKFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

Thus (lid this law, wliich lias been soterrildy 
perverted and abused to make it justify Amer- 
ican Slavery, supply tlic laud with labor, 
and at the same time naturalize the labor to 
the nation, and proselyte him to the faith and 
worsliip of the true God. 

But how were these servants obtained. 
Our translation says they were bought. If 
it were so, it would be clear that they volun- 
tarily sold themselves, and used the price as 
they saw fit for their own bcnelit. Of whom 
else could they be boug-ht, by men whose 
law provided that "he that stcaleth a man 
and selleth him, or if he be found in his liand 
shall surely be put to death." Exo. xxi. IG. 
There is no law in all the book of God, by 
any provision of which, one man can get ano- 
ther into his possession to sell him in the 
market, without stealing. The law of the 
Jews i)unishcd the stealing and selling of 
men witli death, and would he V)uy such sto- 
len men? The right to buy involves tlie right 
to sell, on ihe part of liim of whom tlie pur- 
chase is made. There being no way l)y which 
a man can obtain possession of a man to sell 
him but by stealing him, they could have 
been bought of none but themselves. It is 
true tliey might buy captives out of the hands 
of the lieathen, but captives are stolen if licld 
and sold as slaves. They could tliereforc 
rightfully buy captives, only to free them, 
for as the captor has no title to captives, so 
he can sell none, and the buyer can buy none. 
If we understand by buying, merely engag- 
ing the services of men for a spccilied time 
for a valual.>lc consideration agreed upon be- 



TFIE BIBLE NO r.EFTGE FOR SLYVERY. 103 

tweeii tlic parties, tlie subject is all plain. 
Then might the Gentiles sell themselves to 
the Jews, or parents might sell their children 
to the Jews, by which they apprenticed them 
to the Jewish state as prospective citizens, 
jand to the Jewish religion. I know not how 
Gentile parents could have done better by 
their children. It presented a brighter pros- 
pect than the sale of ciiildren does now in 
the human markets. 

But we have seen that the word buy in our 
sense of the term, is not in the text, that it 
Is procure. AVell, how were they procured ? 
A Jew shall testify. Dr. Roy, in sending 
me the translation above given, accompanied 
it with the following : 

" There is no word in the Bible for slave ; 
n ved is the only word to be found there ; 
iind means a hired man, servant, laborer, sol- 
dier, minister, magistrate, messenger, angel, 
prophet, priest, king, and Christ himself. 
Isa. lii. 13; but it never means a slave for life. 

For the law of the Sanhedrim forbids slavery. 

" 1. The contract was to be mutual and 
voluntary. 

" 2. It was conditional that tlie servant 
should within one year become a Proselyte 
to the JeY>dsh religion ; if not, he was to be 
discharged. 

" 4. If he became such, he was to be gov- 
43rned ly the same law, to eat at the same ta- 
ble, sup out of the same dish, and eat the 
same Passover with his master. 

" 5. Finally, the law allowed him to marry 
his master's (kughter. Prov. xxix. 21. Yan- 
hee in Sanhedrim.." 



10-1 THF. nilU.E NO REILGK ful{ SLAVERV. 

This confirnis the view I have given that 
the law presented a system of naturalization 
and of proselytism. The circumstances of 
the case were such as to call for such a pro- 
vision. In addition to Avhat has l)een said 
of the necessity of some source whence la- 
borers might I)e ol)tained, if we look at the 
condition of the Gentiles, we shall see that 
their circumstances pointed them out as that 
source, under proper regulations and restric- 
tions. They were generally inferior to the 
Jews in point of intelligence and civilization, 
and on the subject of religion, they were in 
the darkest midnight, while the Jews enjoyed 
the liglit of heaven. They were divided 
into petty kingdoms, and were hut little 
more than the servants o-f their kings, who 
wielded an arbitrary if not an absolute scep- 
ter over them. But moral advantages are 
above all other advantages, iind these were 
ibund only in the land of Israel ; over that 
land the wing of the Almighty was spread ; 
there the Angel of the Covenant watched 
behind the veil, and the divine presence 
glowed upon the mercy seat above the ark, 
and from tlmt land alone, the way shown 
clearly that leads to heaven. If David who 
had danced before the unvailed ark, could 
exclaim, "I had rather be a door keeper in 
the house of my God, than to dwell in the 
tents of wickedness, to bring a Gentile from 
the dai-kness of idolatry to the tent service 
of an Israelite, where God's own institutions 
shown u])on him must liave been a transition 
over which angels rejoiced. A positian 
which woidd liavo boon monial to a uativo 



TIIR BIBLE NO REFHIE FOP SLAVERY. 105 

Jew, was honor, exultation and even salva- 
tion to a Gentile, coming from the land of 
shadows and death. 

To this must be added what Ave must sup- 
pose was the case, that numbers of heathen 
were attracted by the Great fame of the 
Jews, tha^ the report of what God had done 
for them, and of all the w^onders he had 
wrought, and how he dwelled in that land, 
spread even among the surrounding nations, 
and that many resorted there, even to better 
their condition as servants. But it would 
not have been safe to have left these matters 
to regulate themselves, or to the will of each 
individual contracting party without the 
restraints of law, and hence all the laws reg- 
ulating the subject of servitude. 

The Jews were authorized to take the 
heathen that might come to them, on condition 
that they became proselytes to their religion 
and then when they were fully inducted, they 
became citizens with all the rights of native 
Jews, and their children born in the land 
were regarded as native Jews. There can 
be no doubt many became proselytes 
by this system, which rendered the truth 
and altars of God accessible to the Gentiles 
even under the mosaic system. And this 
proselyting the Gentiles was but the first 
fruits of their future grand gathering in 
Christ Jesus. And that Gentile blood was 
introduced into Jewish veins is evident ; 
for David the brightest lamp of the nation, 
descended on the side of his mother, from a 
]\toabitess women, who became a proselyte to 
the Jewish reliirion. 



SECTION III 



THE NEW TE3TAMEMT NO KEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 



It remains to be proved that slavery finds 
no sanction ia the New Testament, and the 
argument will be finished. It is a strange 
position which affirms that He who came to 
preach deliverance to the captives, and the 
opening of the prison-doors to them that are 
bound, and who gave himself a ransom for 
all, made provision in his system of govern- 
ment for leaving one portion of his people 
the absolute property and slaves of others, 
from the dark hour of life's opening sorrows, 
until they find a refuge in the arms of death 
and in the darker sleep of the grave I But 
as strange as this position is,it is attempted to 
be maintained, and needs to be met and refu- 
ted. 

Let it be understood, the present argument 
is not to be based upon those scriptures which 
are supposed to condemn slavery ; those have 
been urged in direct arguments previously 
advanced. The only point that remains to 
be examined is, does the New Testament 
teach in any text or texts, in the use of any 
words or form of speech, that slavery is or 
can be right ? As slavery is a positive in- 
stitution, an arbitrary and unnatural condi- 
tion, sustained bv force on one hand, and in- 



108 THK blUl.i: NO RF.FUGF, KOU S1,A\ FlU'. 

voluntary submission on the other, it is not 
a sufficient justification to say that Clirist or 
his apostles did not condemn it, were that 
true ; it must be proved that they authorized 
it. We may demand of tlie slave holder, who 
appropriates his feUow-beings to his own use 
as chattels, " by what authority doest thou 
these things, and who gave thee this author- 
ity ?'' In reply to this they point us to cer- 
tain texts, and words, and forms of speech 
-svhich were used by Christ and his apostles, 
and tell us that they justify slavery. We 
will now examine tliem. 

It is well known that tlic words slave, 
slaveholder, and slavery, are not found in our 
English translation of the New Testament ; 
and if the thing is found at all, it must be in 
the original Greek, and not in the translation. 
The word slave occurs once in tlie English 
translation. Rev. xviii. 13 : " Slaves and 
souls of men." Here the word rendered 
slaves, is soma which literally signifies bodies, 
and should have been translated *' bodies and 
souls of men." 

CONSIDERATION OF Tlir: SHVEIIAT. TERMS USED. 

In the Greek language, there are three 
words which may mean a slave, andrapodon, 
argurojictos, and doulos. The iirst of these, 
andrapodon is derived from ancer, a man, and 
pons, the foot, and signifies a slave and 
nothing but a slave. If this word had been 
used, it would have been decisive, for it has 
no other signification Init a slave ; ])ut this 
woi'd is found nowluM-c in thoNow Tosfnment. 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FoR SLAVERY. lO'J 

The second word, arguronetos, is derived 
from arguros, silver, aud oneomai to buy, and 
lience it signifies to buy with silver ; or a slave, 
doubtless, from the fact that slaves were 
bought with silver. This word is nowhere 
found in the New Testament. 

The third word, is doulos. This word oc- 
curs more than a hundred and twenty times 
in the New Testament, and may mean a slave, 
or a free person, who voluntaril}^ serves 
another, or a public officer, representing the 
public or civil authority. As the word oc- 
curs so frequently, it will be necessary to 
notice only a few instances in which it is 
used in its several senses. If the word prop- 
erly mean sbve, it would be true to the orig- 
inal to translate it slave, where it occurs. I 
will first give a few instances in which it 
cannot mean slave. " On my servants, [dou- 
los] and on my hand-maidens [doulee] I v^^ili 
pour out in those days, of my spirit." Acts, 
ii. 18. 

Here the Avord is used to denote christian 
men and women in general as the servants of 
God. It would read very strange to trans- 
late it slave ; upon my me^i slaves, and upon 
my female slaves will I pour out in those days 
of my spirit. 

" And now Lord, behold their threaten- 
ings : and grant unto thy servants that with 
all boldness they may speak thy word." 
Acts iv. 29. Here the word is used to denote 
the apostles or preachers. It would be no 
improvement to translate it, grant unto thy 
slaves, <fec. '' Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, 
called to be nn apostle," Rom. i. 1 . Would 



110 TTTE niRLF. Xo RFFIT.E FOR SLAVERY. 

it improve it to read, Paul the slave of Jesus 
Christ ? 

*' We preach not ourselves but Christ Je- 
sus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for 
Jesus sake." 2 Cor. iv. 5. We preach our- 
selves your slaves for Jesus sake, would not 
only be without warrant, but it would make 
it conflict with Paul's declaration, that he was 
the slave of Jesus Christ. To be the slave 
of two distinct claimants at the same time is 
impossible. 

" James a servant [slave] of God, and of 
the Lord Jesus Christ. James i. 1. 

" As free, and not using your li]3erty for a 
cloak of malicousness, but as the servants, 
]slaves] of God.'' 1 Peter ii. 16. 

"Simon Peter a servant [slave] and an 
apostle of Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 1. i. 

" Jude the servant [slave] of Jesus." 1. 

" And he sent and signihed it by his angel 
to his servant [slave] John." Rev. i.l. 

" Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor 
tlie trees, till we have sealed the servants 
[slaves] of our God in their foreheads." 
llev. vii. 3. It is not impossible but this 
text may be urged in justification of the prac- 
tice of slaveholders, of branding their slaves 
with the name of the owner. 

Enough has been said to show that the 
word doulos, does not necessarily mean slave, 
in tlie sense of chattel slavery. Indeed it is 
only in a few instances, out of the one hun- 
dred and fifty tiiucs in which it is used, that 
it can be pretended tliat it means slave. 
These cases shall be examined. But before 
ronching that point, the facts amount to al- 



THE BIBLE XO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. Ill 

most a moral demonstration, that the inspir- 
ed penmen did not mean to spread a justilica- 
tion of human bondage upon the record. 
There was a word which appropriately ex- 
pressed a chattel slave which they have nev- 
er used, but have always used a word which 
properly express the condition of free per- 
sons in'^the voluntary service of another, 
whether as a common laborer, a personal at- 
tendant, an agent, or a public officer, repre- 
sent ng some higher authority, human or di- 
vine. 

Is it not clear then that they did not de- 
sign to teach the rightful existence of human 
chattelship. 

As the writers of the New Testament have 
not used the word andrapodon which most 
specifically signifies a slave, so have they not 
used the properly corresponding word, an- 
drapodismos, which in the specific word for 
slavery. As they use the word doulos, for 
the man, the servant, which may denote a 
voluntary servant, one employed for pay ; so 
they use the derivative word douloo to denote 
the condition, the service, servitude or bond- 
age, which may also be voluntaiy. 

So, when speaking of rightful relations, 
they have never used the word andropodistecs, 
which signifies a slaveholder, one who redu- 
ces men to slavery, or holds them as slaves, 
and which corresponds to andrapodon, a slave ; 
but have used the word dcspotees, which sig- 
nifies lord, master, or head of a family, with- 
out at all implying a chattel slaveholder. 
The proper word for a slaveholder andrapo- 
didpp.^. oocnrs luit onoo in \}\o No\v Testament. 



112 THE nil'.I.F. No RKFIGF. FOR SI.AVFRV. 

1 Tim. i. lO : wlicrc it is translated nvin^teal- 
ers. 

Despotccs, tlic only word usod which it can 
"be pretended means slavelioUler, occurs in 
only ten texts in the New Testament, in six 
of which it is applied to God, or to Jesus 
Clirist, and in four to men as masters. The 
cases in which it is applied to God or to Je- 
sus Christ, are as follows : 

" Lord, [Desjwtee-s,] now lettest thou thy 
servant, [dotihs] depart in peace." Luke ii. 2l>. 

" Lord, [Dc.<potees] thou art God.'' Acts 
iv. 24. 

" If a man therefore purge himself from 
these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanct- 
lied, and meet for his master's Idcspctces] use.'' 

2 Tim. ii. 21. 

"Denyin.o; tlie Lord [Def<potees] that))0ught 
them.'' "2 Peter ii. 1. 

" Denying the only Lord [Desjyotees] God.'' 
Jude 4.*^ 

"How long Lord, [Despctecs,] holy and 
true." 

The above use of the word shows that it 
does not signify a slaveholder, and from the 
examination of the several words concerned, 
it appears ns though the apostles were so 
guided as to employ none of the words which 
belong properly to the system of chattel 
slavery. The four remaining texts in which 
the word dcspotecs occurs, are the texts which 
some suppose descri])e slavery, and these sliall 
nil be examined in their place. 1 have thu.s 
far proved that the inspired writers liavo not 
used one of the words whicli une<juivocally 
express rjinttloslnvcry. and tliofact tlmt llici'e 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. Ho 

were such words in the language in Avliicli 
thej wrote, and that they always avoided 
them, and used words which properly denote 
free laborers, is very conclusive evidence 
that they never designed to endorse the sys- 
tem, if they knew any thing about it, and 
lived and labored among it. 

CHRIST IN NO INSTANCE TAUGHT OR JUSTIFIED 
SLAVERY. 

We are now prepared to enter upon an ex- 
amination of the texts which it is affirmed 
justify slavery. 

" There came unto him a centurion, be- 
seeching him and saying, Lord my servant 
lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously 
tormented. And Jesus saitli unto him, I will 
come and heal him. The centurian answered 
and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou 
shouldst come under my roof, but speak the 
word only and my servant shall be healed. 
For I am a man under authority, having sol- 
diers under me ; and I say to this man go, 
and he goeth ; and to another come, and he 
cometh f and to my servant do this, and he 
doeth it." Matt. viii. 6-9. 

There is certainly no slavery in this text, 
and I should not have considered it necessary 
to have introduced it but for the purpose of 
presenting a specimen of each class. 

Slavery is not found in the fact that as a 
Roman officer he had soldiers under him, that 
he said to one go, and goeth ; and to another 
come and he cometh. Those soldiers were 
not his slaves. Nor is slavcrv found in tho 



114 THE r.IRT.E NO REFUClF, FOR PIAVF.RY. 

fact lliat lie liad Hcrvaiii^^, lor llic word here 
translated servant never means slave. The 
word irf pni<> and signifies " a child, mail or 
female, and of any age from infancy to man- 
hood, a son or daughter, a boy, youth, girl, 
maiden." 

A few examples whill show this. ]\ratt. ii. 
IG. '-Herod sent forth and slew all the 
children.''^ Here the same word is translated 
children. Matt. xvii. 18. " And the child 
was cured from that very hour." Here the 
same word is rendered child. Matt. xxi. 15. 
" The children crying in the market." Here 
the same word is translated children. Luke 
ii. 43. " The child Jesus tarried behind." 
It will not be pretended that the words In- 
sous ho puis, " the child Jesus," denotes a 
slave, and yet the word here rendered child, 
is the same*^ that ^s rendered servant where 
the centnrian said " my servant lieth at home 
sick." It was probably the centurian's child 
that was sick ; at least it would have been 
just as faithful a translation to have so ren- 
dered it. 

" AVho then is a faithful nnd wise servant, 
whom his Lord hath made ruler over his house- 
hold, to give them meat in due season ? 
Ijlcssed is that servant whom the Lord, when 
he cometh, shall find so doing. Verily I say 
unto you, that he shall make him ruler over 
all his goods. ]5ut, and if that evil servant 
shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his 
coming : and shall begin to smite his fellow 
servants, and to eat and drink with the 
drunken : the lord of that servant shall come 
in a day when he lookcth not for him, and in 



THK BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 115 

an hour that he is not awaro of, and shall cut 
him asunder, and appoint him his portion 
with the lijpocritcs : there shall be weeping 
and gnashing of teeth." Matt. xxiv. 45-51. 
This is as'strong a text in support of the 
idea of slavery as any thing found in the 
teachings of our Lord. I will then examine 
it as a decisive text by which the question 
may be settled. 

1. Here the word rendered servant is 
doidos, which does not of itself p'-ove the ex- 
istence of slavery. This has already been 
proved. If then the text proves the exis- 
tence of slavery it must bo from some other 
circumstances. 

2. If there is any slavery in the case, the 
ruling servant was a slave in common with 
the rest, for he is represented as smiting his 
fellow servants. This furnishes strong pre- 
sumptive proof that none were slaves. It is 
unknown to the history of slavery for a chat- 
tel slave to be left in sole charge of such an 
immense estate as is involved in this illustra- 
tion of our Lord. The management of a 
plantation or an estate of slaves is never 
left to one of the slaves, during the long and 
uncertain absence of the proprietor, as must 
have been the case if our Lord lx)rrowed his 
illustration from slavery. 

3. The smiting his fellow servants is no 
proof that they were slaves. It was a wrong- 
ful smiting, a wicked smiting, and cannot 
prove that either party were slaves. A hired 
overseer would be just as likely to smite 
hired laborers, as a slave overseer would be 
to smite slave laborers, there being nothing 



llCi THE niRI.E NO RFKLfiE FOIi SI.AVF.RV. 

to justify the smiting. ^Moreover tlie sinitin<^ 
in this cat-e is associated Avitli druiikoiniess, 
and lieiicc, it is clearly just that kind of as- 
sault and battery which a drunken overseer 
Avould commit upon those who might be un- 
der his direction. 

4. The punishment inflicted upon the un- 
faithful servant proves that he was not a 
slave. It is clear that he was executed, or 
cut off, which is in perfect harmony with the 
customs that prevailed among eastern petty 
tyrants. But as a general rule, men would 
not treat an unfaithful slave in such a man- 
ner, but would rather sell him upon some 
cotton or sugar plantation, or send him into 
the chained gang. 

5. If it were admitted tjiat the lord was 
a slaveholder, and that the servants were 
slaves, it would be no justification of slavery. 
It is only an illustration, and does not prove 
the rightfulness of the facts and circumstan- 
ces from which it is borrowed. If the fact 
that our Lord used the conduct of masters 
and slaves to illustrate his truths, proves 
that slavery is riglit, much more mast the 
cited fact that tlie master cut his slave asun- 
der prove that it is right for slaveholders to 
cut tlown their slaves, when they disobey 
them, or when they do wrong. The two 
strong points in the parable are first, the ser- 
vant was unfaithful and violated his charge ; 
and secondly his Lord or master, severely 
punished him for it. Allow this to have 
transpired bctwe n a slave owner and a slave 
and if its use by our Lord, to illustrate the 
wicked conduct of sinners and the })uni>h- 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. lit 

ment whicli God will inflict, proves that 
slavery was right, it must prove with equal 
certainty that the punishment inflicted by the 
master was right. That was capital punish- 
ment ; he cut him asunder. The truth is, the 
use our Lord makes of the facts is^ no en- 
dorsement of the slavery or of the partic- 
ular conduct of the master, upon the suppo- 
sition that there is any slavery in the case. 
Christ often employed facts and translations 
to illustrate the truth, without endorsing 
such facts and illustrations. A few examples 
will show this. The parable of the vine- 
yard recorded Matt. xxi. 33-41, is of this 
class. It does not endorse the act of the 
proprietor in destroying the husband-men. 
The parable of the marriage supper record- 
ed, Matt. xxii. 1-14, is of the same class. 
It does not prove the rightfulness even of 
making such a feast, much less does it justify 
the conduct of the king in dealing so severe- 
ly with the man who had not on a wedding 
garment. That man was merely guilty of 
an impropriety, which could not justify such 
severe punishment ; but our Saviour could 
use the fact to illustrate a righteous adminis- 
tration without endorsing it. The case of 
the unjust steward, recorded Luke xvi. 1-9, 
is entirely conclusive on this point. It can- 
not be presumed that Christ intended to en- 
dorse the conduct of that stewsa:d as moral- 
ly right. 

Enough has been said, not only to show 
that the text with which I started contains 
no justification of slavery, but -also to show 
that no other like text found among our Sa- 



lis THE mBLE KG REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

viour's parables and illustrations can be tor- 
tured into a support of chattel bondage. 
We may tliercforc leave the gospels and turn 
to the epistles and see if slavery can be found 
ill ilicm. 



PAUL TO THE CORTNTIIIANS DOES NOT JUSTIFY 
SLAVERY. 

"Let every man aljide in the same calling 
wherein ho was called. Art thou called. 
being a servant? Care not for it; but if 
thou mayest be made free use it rather. For 
he that is called in the Lord, hcing a servant, 
is the Lord's freeman : likewise also he that 
is called being free, is Christ's servant. Ye 
are bought with a price, be not ye the serv- 
ants of men. Brethren, let every man where- 
in he is calleil, therein abide with God." 
Cor. vii. 20-22. 

This text may refer to slavery, the persons 
here called servants, doulos, may have been 
slaves. It is not certain that they were 
slaves because4hey are called doulos, for this 
terra is often applied to free persons who are 
merely in the employ of another. The fact 
is admitted that slavery did exist in that 
country, and that the word doulos might be 
a])plicd to a slave, just as our word servant, 
is used to denote any one who serves, wheth- 
er voluntary or involuntary, free or bond. 
This is all the concession candor requires me 
to make, and in this lies all the proof there 
is that slavery is involved in the case. The 
text upon its face contains several things 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 119 

which are unfavorable to the idea that the 
persons treated of were chattel slaves. I 
urge two grounds of defense against any 
conclusion drawn from the text, that slavery 
is or can be right. 

I. It is not clear that the persons were 
slaves, to whom the apostle wrote. This is 
a vital point and must be positively proved ; 
inference or mere probability will not do in 
such a case. Here is a great system of hu- 
man bondage, sought to be justified, and of 
course, no text can be admitted as proving 
it riglit, unless it be certain that it relates to 
the subject. Now, where is the proof that 
this text certainly speaks of slaves. 

1. The use of the word, doulos^ does not 
prove it, for that is applied to Jesus Christ, 
Paul and Peter, to all christians, and to free 
persons who are in the employ of others, 
whether as public officers or mere laborers. 

2. The general instruction given does not 
prove that the persons addressed were slaves. 
The general instruction is for all to abide in 
the same calling ihey were in when convert- 
ed. The same principle is applied specifical- 
ly to husbands and wives, as well as to serv- 
ants. The general instruction therefore does 
not prove that slaves are meant. 

3. The specific application of this instruc- 
tion to servants by name, does not prove 
that they were slaves. It might be necessary 
to give such instruction to free or hired ser- 
vants. The gospel was making inroads upon 
a heathen community, and it may be presumed 
that the greatest portion of the converts 



120 TIIH r.lBLE NO KEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

wore among tlic lower classes and servants. 
If these servants were all to forsake their 
positions and the employ of all unconverted 
employers, so soon as they were converted, 
it would not only produce confusion and 
much inconvenience, but bring Christianity 
into discredit and provoke persecution. It 
would not only deprive nmny families of the 
rcquisit number of laborers, but would tlirow 
an equal number of laljorers out of employ. 

4. The exception which the apostle makesto 
the specific application of his general rule to 
servants, does not prove that they were slaves. 
The exce])tion is this, " But if thou mayest 
he made free, use it rather." This is doubt 
less the strongest point in support of slavery 
contained in the text, for those who mustiind 
slavery in it somehow, will at once say that 
it supposes that they might not be able to be 
free, in which case they must be slaves. 
This is plausible, but it is not a necessary 
conclusion, and therefore cannot be allowed 
as establishing the rightfulness of slavery. 
It may refer to contracts and relations vol- 
untarily entered into for a limited term of 
years, and for a price stipulated. Such 'ca- 
ses exist in every community, and where a 
considerable portion of an entirely heathen 
community, should suddenly embrace Chris- 
tianity, some of the converts would be found 
sustaining these relations, and involved in 
those obligations to heathen parties entirely 
unfriendly to the s])iritual interest of such 
converts. Now, thougli it would not be 
]n*oper to violently rupture all such contracts 
on tlic conversion of one of the parties, 



THE BIBLE NO RBFUGR FOB SLAVIRY. 121 

though it would be a good general rule for 
every man to abide in his calling or occupa- 
tion, yet where a release could be peaceably 
obtained in any such case, it would be best 
to improve it. This is all that the text ne- 
cessarily means, and this is rendered the more 
probable sense, from the fact that, if they 
were really slaves, and their state of slavery 
regarded as right in the light of the gospel, 
the probability of obtaining a release would 
hardly be great enough to constitute the bas- 
sis of a special apostolic rule. Indeed, the 
exposition is more consistent with the whole 
scope of the apostle's reasoning than any 
exposition that can be based upon the assump- 
tion that chattel slavery was the thing with 
which the apostle was dealing. 

II. Allowing that the text does treat of 
slaves, that the person named as " called be- 
ing a servant," was a personal chattel, it does 
not prove slavery to be right, or throw over 
it any sanction, not even by implication. — 
Th« former exposition is doubtless the right 
one, upon the supposition that the persons 
were not slaves, but upon the supposition that 
they were slaves, that exposition is set aside, 
and one entirely different must be resorted 
to. No such exposition can be adopted as 
will make tlie text approve of slavery. 

1. The direction, " let every man abide in 
the same calling wherein he is called," does 
not teach the duty of a voluntary submission 
to slavery, upon the supposition that the di- 
rection was given to slaves ; and unless it 
teaches the duty of voluntary submission to 
slavery, it does not and cannot prove slavery 
6 



122 THE BIBLK NO HErUGK fOK SLAVERY. 

to be right. The words, " If thou mayest be 
free, use it rather," arc just as positive 
and binding as the words, " let every man 
abide in the same calling," and allowing the 
words to be addressed to slaves, they com- 
mand every christian convert, who is a* slave, 
to obtain his freedom if he can ; it leaves him 
no right to consent to be a slave, if he may 
be free ; if he has power to be free. 

The word here translated mayest is dunamai 
and is translated in this case by too soft a term 
to do justice to the original in this connec- 
tion. It is used to express a thing possible 
or impossible .in the most absolute sense. — 
It occurs in about two hundred and ten texts 
and is uniformly translated can and with a 
negative particle canwoi, able and not able, 
and in very few cases, not over five in all, it 
is rendered may ; once it is rendered might, 
and in only one case besides the text, is ren- 
dered mayest. That is Luke xvi. 2. " Thou 
mayest be no longer steward.'' Here a stron- 
ger word would do better justice to the sense. 
The word occurs in such texls as the follow- 
ing : " God is abk of these stones to raise up 
children unto Abraham." Matt. iii. 9. 

" A city that is set on a l\ill cauvioi he 
hid." V. 14. 

Thovi canst not make one hair wliiteor 
black." m. 

" No man can serve two masters." vi. 24. 
" But are not able to kill the soul." x. 28. 
" From which ye cmdd not be justified by 
the law of Moses." Acts xiii. 39. 

" They that are in the flesh canwoi please 
God." Horn. viii. S. 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 123 

" To liim that is of power to establish you." 
xvi. 25. 

The word is supposed to be derived fron 
deinos, powerful, and hence in the expression 
" If thou mayest be free, the sense is, if thou 
hast power to be free, if thou hast strength 
to be free, if thou art able to be free, if thou 
canst be free, " use it rather," 

There can be no doubt of this position, 
that the text leaves those concerned no choice 
between slavery and liberty ; if it refers to 
slaves, it requires them to take and use their 
liberty if they can get it, leaving no right to 
remain in^the condition of slaves any longer 
than up to the time they can be free. This 
is very important in two points of light. 

1. It is a most clearly implied condemna- 
tion of slaverya s unfriendly to the develope- 
ment of Christianity in the heart and life. — 
This of itself proves that the text does not 
and cannot justify slavery. 

2. This positive command requiring the 
slave to take and use his liberty, whenever 
he can get it, necessacrily-qualifies and limits 
what is said of abiding in the condition 
wherein they were called. '* Let every man 
abide in the same calling where he was called. 
Art thou called, being a servant ? Care not 
for it, but if thou mayest be made free, use 
it rather." The sense must be that the slave 
was to abide in slavery as a Christian, until 
he could be made free, rather than to give up 
his Christianitv on the ground that a slave 
must first be made free before he could be a 
Christian. The obliga^on was to be a 
Christian while he was compelled to remain 
a slave, rather than to remain a slave one 



124 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

hour after he could be free. To abide in the 
Fame calling wherein he was called, means 
that he should remain a christian in that con- 
dition, until he can get out of it rather than 
waiting until ho can get out of it before he 
undertakes to be a christian. The fact that 
the slave is commanded to use his freedom 
if he can be made free, forbids any other con- 
struction than that which 1 have put upon 
the words. The command to use his liberty 
if he can be made free, limits the command 
to abide as he was called, to the sense of 
submitting to slavery as an unavoidable evil, 
imtil he can get out of it in a manner con- 
sistent with the laws of Christianity. This 
is all the obligation that is imposed upon 
the slave, and this is not the slightest justi- 
fication of slavery, for there is not a christian 
anti-slavery man in the country, even the 
most ultra, who would not now give the same 
advice to all slaves in the land, could they 
speak in their ears. Advice or a command 
to submit to a wrong w^hich we have not pow- 
er to prevent, is no justification of that wrong. 
"But I say unto you that ye resist not evil," 
is no justification of evil. The fact that 
"charity beareih all things," and " endureth 
all things," does not ])rovc that all things 
thus borne and endured are right. So no 
command, were it ever so plain, to submit, ev- 
er so quietly to slavery, as a condition from 
which we have no ])ower to escape, could be 
a justification of slavery. 

it strikes me tliat we are compelled to tliis 
explanation of the text, to save the a])0stle 
from confusion and self contradiction, if we 
admit that he was really treating of chatHi 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGB FOR SLAVERY. 125 

slavery. We cannot suppose that tlie apos- 
tle uses the same word in two or more differ- 
ent senses in the same most intimate connec- 
tion, without giving any intimation of the 
fact ; if therefore v,^e render the word doulos, 
slave, instead of servant, we must preserve 
this rendering through the whole connection. 
In that case the text will read thus : " Let 
every m.an abide in the same calling where 
he was called. Art thou called being a ^/aue 
care not for it : but if thou mayest be made 
free use it rather. For he that is called in 
the Lord being a slave is the Lord's freeman : 
likewise, he also that is called being free 
is Christ's slave. Ye are bought with a price ; 
be not ye the slaves of men." 

This makes the apostle assert that a con- 
verted slave is a slave of man, and God's 
free man at the same time. This is impossi- 
ble, for if the obligations of slavery are mor- 
ally binding on the slave, he cannot be free 
to serve God ; but if the slavery be an entire 
unmingled moral wrong, imposing no moral 
obligation on the slave, but only a physical 
restraint, then can the slave be God's free 
man, just as clearly as he whose feet and hands 
should be paralized, could still be God's free 
man, his head and heart being still sound. 

Again, the assumption that the apostle is 
treating of chattel slavery, as the text is 
above rendered, makes him assert that the 
converted slave is God's free man, and that 
the converted free man is God's slave. If by 
servitude a voluntary state is meant, in which 
case there is no chattel slavery ; or if chat- 
tel slavery be understood, as a human crime, 



12G Tlib KIBLC NO RF.FLCJlu FOll fcLAVEKV. 

inflicted upon Ihcm by force, imposing no 
moral obliiration, then the wliolc is consist- 
ent. 

Finally, the idea that chattel slavery is in- 
volved, and {hat slaves are under moral ob- 
ligation to submit to it, as per (orresponding- 
moral right on the part of the slaveholder lo 
hold them as slaves, makes the apostle com- 
mand them to abide in slavery and not to a- 
bide in it ; to be s'aves and not to be at the 
same time. The sense must run thus, — "Let 
every man abide in the same calling \vherein 
he is called," that is, if a man is called being 
a slave, let him remain a slave ; but as " ye 
are bought with a price, be not ye the sicwcs 
of men." A more direct and palpable con- 
tradiction could not be perpetrated. But 
allow that there is no justitication of slavery, 
tliat slaves are only directed to submit to it 
and bear it as a jdiysical necessity which 
they have no power to escape, and the whole 
is plain and consistent, then may they be re- 
quired to abide in it and endure all its wrongs 
as Christians, until providence shall open a 
■svay for them to escape from it. 

Ihave bestowed full attention to the above 
text, because it is believed to be one of the 
stroagest in sup})ort of slavery, and because 
it is the MrsL of the class with which 1 have 
undertaken to graj)ple. In disposing of it, 
1 have settled some ])rinciples, which can be 
ap])lied in the consideration of other texts, 
without having to be again discussed l,at 
length. 



THE BIBLE ^'0 KLFUGE -FOR SLAVERY. 121 



r AUL TO THE EFHESIANS HAS NOT SANCTIONED 
SLAVERY. 



"Serva,nts,be obedient to them that are your 
masters, according to th^ flesh, with fear and 
trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto 
Christ; not with .eye-service, as men-plea- 
■sers.; but as the servaiits of Christ, doing the 
will -of God from the heart ; with good will 
doing service, as to the Lord, and not to 
men ; knowing that whatsoever good thing 
tiny man doeth, the same shall he receive of 
the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, 
je masters, 4o the same things unto them, 
forbearing thr^at<3ning : knowing that your 
Master also is in heaven ; neither is there re- 
spect of persons with him". Eph. vi. 5-9. 

This is another of the strongest texts urg- 
-ed by the advocates of slavery, in support of 
the terrible institution. On the examination 
of each of these texts, two principle questions, 
are necessarily raised, viz : first, does the 
'text ti^eat ef slaves, slaveholders and slave- 
ry? and secondly, if so, does it sanction 
slavery as morally right ? Unless both these 
questions are clearly and undeniably answer- 
•ed in the affirmative, the argument for slave- 
ry must fall. We say then of this text : 

I. It is not certain that the persons hei^ 
'Called servants, were chattel slaves ; and that 
the persons called masters, were slavehol- 
ders. 

1. It does not follow that slaves and slave- 
l3oldei'S arc ircatcd of from the terms employ- 



128 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

cd. The word here translated servants is 
douloi, the plural of doulos. That this word 
of itself does not prove that chattel slaves arc 
meant, has been already sufficiently shown. 

The word masters is kurio'i, the plural of 
kurios. It has been suflBciently shown that 
this word does not necessarily mean a slave- 
holder. I will however add two examples of 
its use. 

"The same Lord, (Kurios,) over all is rich 
unto all that call upon him." Rom. x. 12. 
Here the word is used to denote the Supreme 
Ruler of all men.*-^ 

"Sirs, {Kurioi, plural of Kurws) what must 
I do to be saved." Here the word is used as 
a mere title or sign of respect, and can mean 
no more than our English words. Sirs, Gen- 
tlemen, or Mister. The use of the word 
therefore, cannot prove that slaveholders arc 
intended. 

2. The duties enjoined upon these servants, 
does not prove that they were slaves. J Not a 
word is said which will not apply as appro- 
priately to free hired laborers as to slaves. 

(1.) The command to obey them that were 
their masters, does not prove the existence 
of chattel slavery. This must follow from 
two considerations. First, their obedience 
was limited to what was morally right. This 
is clear from the fact that their obedience 
was to be rendered "as the servants of Christ, 
doing the will of God from the heart." This 
limits obedience to the will of God, and 
makes the actor the judge of what that will 
is, which is inconsistent with chattel slavery. 
Secondly, with this limitation, obedience is 



. ' fHE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOK SLAVERY. 129 

due to all employers, and all free persons who 
engage in the service of others, are bound to 
obey them, and carry cut all their orders, ac- 
cording to the usages of the community, with<^ 
in the limits of the will of God, or what is 
morally right. Such a direction, to a com- 
munity, newly converted from heathenism, 
and still intermingled with the unconverted 
heathen, must have been necessary, and itg 
observance essential to the reputation and fu- 
ture success of the gospel among them. It is 
clear then that the simple command that ser= 
vants obey does not prove that they were 
slaves. 

(2.) The qualifying words added to the 
word masters, "according to the flesh," do not 
prove the existence of the relation of owner 
and slave. TheGreek v^OTd,sarks, here render- 
ed flesh, literally signifies the human body in 
contradistinction from the spirit or mind. 

Matthew Henry construes it thus : "Who 
have the command of your bodies, but not of 
your souls : God above has dominion over 
these." 

Dr. A. Clark thus : "Your masters in secu- 
lar things ; for they have no authority over 
your religion nor over your souls." 

Rev. A. Barnes, thus : "This is designed, 
evidently to limit the obligation. The mean- 
ing is, that they had control over the body, 
the flesh. They had the power to command 
the service which the body could render ; but 
they were not lords of the spirit. The soul 
acknowledges God as its Lord, and to the 
Lord they were to submit in a higher sense 
than to their masters." Allow either of these 



expositions, and there can be no slavery madd 
out of the text. If there be a limit to tlic 
slave's obedience, and if the slave is judge of 
tliat limit, as Tic must be, for the language is 
addressed to him, to govern his conduct, then 
there is an end to slavery. But if we under- 
stand free men imdcr contract to serve others^ 
it is all plain. The limitation, "according 
to the flesh," must mean, obey them in secular 
matters only, and so far only as does not con- 
flict with the spiritual or moral claims of 
Christianity. It left them no right to serve 
or to agree to serve beyond what was consis- 
tent Avith tlieir obligations and duties as 
Christians. 

(3.) The manner[of rendering the obedience 
required does not prove the existence of chat- 
tel slavery. The manner was "with fear and 
trembling." 

The words, phobou kai trojnou, fear and 
trembling, are capable of a great latitude of 
meaning, from absolute terror to a religious 
veneration, or the respect due to any superi- 
or. The same expression occurs in two other 
texts. The first is 2 Cor. vii. 15, where 
Paul says of Titus, "with fear and trembling, 
phobou kaitromou, ye received him." 

The other text is Phih ii. 12. "Work out 
your own salvation with fear and trembling, 
phobou kai ti'omou." In this text fear and trem- 
bling means deep solicitude or npprchcnsion. 

The Greek word phobou, which is the geni- 
tive singular oi^phohos, is defined tluis : "Fear, 
dread, terror, fright, apprehension, alarm, 
flight, rought.'' If it be understood in its 
mildest sense, us fear in the sense of anxiety, 



\tE BIBLE NO IlEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 131 

roverence or respect, or apprehension, in the 
sense of uneasiness of mind, lest by failing 
to obey, they should injure the reputation of 
the gospel, it is all pe-rfectly consistent with 
the position and duties offree hired servants. 
Ajid this is all that the word necessarily 
means. The same word is used to express 
the respect which wives are required to mani- 
fest towards their husbands. "Wivos be in 
subjection to your own husbands ; that if 
any obey not the w^ord, they also in ay with- 
out the word be won by the conversation of 
^iie wives ; while they behold your chaste 
conversation coupled with /ear." 1 Petet 
iii. 1, 2. Here the same word is used in the 
original translated fear. If the words, pho- 
hou kai traniou be understood in any higher 
sense, whi<jk rendors it inapplicable to free 
hired laborers, as dread, terror, or fright, it 
renders the whole matter inconsistent with a 
Christian brotherhood, and makes the scrip- 
tures contradict themselves. No Christian 
can be justified in holding his brother Chris- 
tian under his own reign of terror, which 
makes him afraid, and causes him to ti^mble 
at the sound of his footsteps, or the tone of 
his voice, or the flash of his eye. "Fear and 
trembling," in such a sense, is inconsistent 
with what is said to the masters. This will 
be clearly &een hereafter. It is only neces- 
sary at this point to remark that slaves would 
not be likely to fear and tremble before mas- 
ters, who were not allowed even to threaten 
them. It would make the scriptures contra- 
dict themselves, for it is written, "There is no 
fear in love ; but perfect love casteth out 



132 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVEHT. 

fear ; because fear hath torment." 1 John 
iv. 18. Such are the difficulties, if we under- 
stand the language, ''fear and tremble," in 
the sense in which slaves fear and tremble in 
the South ; but if we understand it in the 
milder sense in which I have explained it 
above, and in which sense it isapplicablo to 
free laborers, and to wives as shown, the 
whole matter will appear plain. It must ap- 
pear from what has been said that there is 
nothing in the duties enjoined which proves 
the existence of slavery. 

3. The discrimination ])etween bond and 
free, does not prove the existence of slavery. 
As an encouragement to faithful servants, 
Paul says, "whatsoever good thing any man 
doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, 
whether he be bond or free. This does not 
add the slightest force to the argument, for 
the word that is rendered bojid, is the same 
that is rendered servant in the 5th verse. It 
is doulos ; doulos eite eleutheros ; bond or free. 
"Whether he be servant or free, would be a 
translation more in accordance with common 
usuage. The word doulos, servant, occurs 
over one hundred and twenty times in theNew 
Testament, and in every instance is translat- 
ed servant, save seven in which it is render- 
ed bond. Four of the seven exceptions occur 
in the writings of Paul, and the text under 
consideration is the only one whicli can be 
supposed to justify slavery in any sense. The 
other three are as follows : 'Tor by one 
Spirit are we all baptized into one body, 
whether Jews or Gentile.":^, whether bond or 
free.'^ 1 Cor. xii. 13. ''There is neither 



TflE BIBLE N"© REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 133 

Jew nor Greek, neither bond norfreeJ^ Gal. 
iii. 28. "And have put on the new man, 
which is renewed in knowledge after the im- 
age of him that created him : where there is 
neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor un- 
circumcision. Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor 
free.^^ Col. iii. 10, 11. If the word doulos, 
rendered bond in these texts, means a chattel 
slave, the thing cannot exist among Christi- 
^ ans, and the gospel abolishes the relation of 
* master and slave so soon as the parties are 
converted. The other three cases in which 
the word donlos is translated bond, are in re- 
yelations. They need not be examined, as 
they have no important bearing on the ques- 
tion. We see from the above the discrimina- 
tion between bond and free does not prove the 
existence of chattel slavery, because it is per- 
fectly appropriate to distinguish between men 
who are the servants of others, as hired labo- 
rers, and who are not. It only has the force of 
thewordservantin contradistinction from one 
who is an employer, or who labors for himself. 
4. The obligations imposed upon the mas- 
ters does not prove that they were chattel 
slaveholders, or that their servants were 
their chattel slaves. I know not how to re- 
concile what is said to the masters with the 
possibility that chattel slavery is involved. 
This however is not my part of the enterprise, 
my work is to show that what is said does 
not prove that slavery existed, and if in doing 
this, I prove that it did not exist, it will be 
the result of the nature of the facts I have to 
deal with. Two things are commanded for 
which a reason is assigned. 



lo4 Ti'IK UIULK NO UEILOK FOR SLAVKKV. 

(1.) Masters are commanded to " do tlio 
same things unto thorn," that is to their ser- 
vants. What is here meant by 'Mhe same 
things." It certainly refers to what had been 
said to servants. It will not admit of a strict 
literal construction, for that would require 
the n^.aster to obey the servant with fear and 
trembling ; it would be to put the servant 
and the master upon an exact equality in al) 
things. This we know the apostle did not 
mean, and to attempt to ground an argument 
upon such a literal sense, would be to ap})ear 
uncandid. "The same things," in the con- 
nection, literally means just what he had been 
telling the servants to do, but from this we 
must depart, but we are not allowed to depart 
from the literal sense only so far as to reach 
a sense Avhich will be in harmony with the 
general scope of the subject. Let us try it. 
Suppose we understand by the same things, 
that Paul merely meant to command masters 
to act towards their servants, upon the same 
principles upon Avhich he had commanded the 
servants to act towards them ; or in other 
words, tliat Paul meant to command masters 
to pursue a course of conduct towards their 
st3rvants, which correspond to the conduct 
which he h.ad commanded the servants to pur- 
sue towards them. 

This strikes me as not only a fair and 
liberal view, but as the only true view. A 
slaveholder cannot deny the fairness of this 
construction of the words. Now let me ap- 
ply the principle. It will run thus : 

"Servants be obedient to them that are 
your masters.'' Masters give no oppressive, 



TH^i SIBLS KO KEFUGE FOPv SLAVERY. 135 

unreasonable, or morally wrong commands. 
Then must tlie servant be left free to serve 
his God, and discharge all the domestic du- 
ties of a husband, father, wife, mother, son or 
daughter. This would make an end of chat- 
tel slavery. 

Servants obey with fear and tremble, that 
is with all due respect for superiors. Mas- 
ters, treat your servants with all the gentle- 
ness and kindness that is due from a superior 
to an inferior. This even cannot be recon- 
ciled with chattel slavery. Servants, serve 
in singleness of heart, as unto Christ. Mas- 
ters, conduct yourselves towards your ser- 
vants with entire honesty, and pay them for 
their labor as doing it unto Christ. 

Servants, serve " not with eye-service as 
man pleasers, but as the servants of Christ." 
Masters, do not treat your servants in the 
presence of others with apparent kindness to 
secure a good name, and then abuse them 
when there is no one to see or hear ; but treat 
them with the same honesty and purity of 
motive with which you serve Christ. 

Servants, obey as doing the will of God 
from the heart. Masters command and claim 
nothing which is contrary to the will of God. 

There is certainly no slavery in^ all this, 
but much which appears inconsistent with 
slavery. It would not be suf&cient to say 
that it might refer to slavery, or that it might 
be reconciled with slavery ; it must positive^ 
ly mean slavery beyond a doubt to be admit- 
ted as proof of the rightful existence of slave- 
ry in this land and age, for that is the real 
question. 



136 THE BIBLE NO REFUGEJ FOR SLAVERY. 

(2.) Musters are commanded to forbear 
threatninfT. This does not prove that Paul 
was treating of ehattcl slaveholders and 
slaves. This forbids all punishment, all 
chastizement. No construction can be put 
upon the words which will make them less 
restrictive. 

The Greek word anieemi, here rendered 
forbearmg, has a variety of significations 
and shades of meaning, amoHg which are the 
following. " To remit, forgive, forbear ; to 
dismiss, leave, let alone ; to desert, forsake ; 
to let slip, omit, neglect." The word occurs 
but four times in the New Testament as fol- 
lows : Acts xvi. 26, where it is translated 
loosed. " Every ones hands were hosed." — 
Acts xxvii. 40. it is again translated loosed. 
'* They committed themselves unto the sea, 
and /oo^et/ the rudder-bands, and hoisted up 
themainsail^to the wind." Heb. xiii. 5, it is 
translated will leave, being accompanied with 
a negative, never. " He lia'h said, I im// nev- 
er leave thee nor forsake thee." 

The only remaining case is the text under 
consideration, where it is translated forbear- 
ing, threatening. There is seen to be nothing 
in the use of the word in other texts, to make 
it mean less here than a command not to 
threaten at all. He who threatens in any 
degree does not forbear threatening. 

The word, threatening, denotes the act of 
making a declaration of an intention to in- 
flict punishment. It is used in no other sense. 
It occurs but four times in the New Testa- 
ment. Acts iv. 17. "But that it spread no 
further among the people, let us strictly 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 137 

threaten tliem." The Greek words are, apilee 
apilesometha, a literal translation of which 
would be, " Let us threaten them with threat- 
ning." In the twenty-ninth verse, it is said, 
" And now Lord behold their threatenings.^' 
The other text where the word occurs is Acts 
ix. 1. " And Saul yet breathing out threaten- 
ings," apileesj threatenings. It is clear then 
that the word foi'beari7ig, as used in the text, 
means not to do, or refrain from doing ; and 
the word, threatening, means the making a 
declaration of a purpose to inflict punish- 
ment. The two words, therefore as connect- 
ed in the text, amount to a command not to 
threaten punishment. This by the most cer- 
tain implication forbids the punishment itself. 
It would be absurd to suppose christian 
slaveholders were allowed to inflict a punish- 
ment, which they were forbidden to threaten. 
It is certain then in the case of the masters 
and servants here treated of, the masters 
were not allowed by the law of Christianity 
to inflict any punishment upon their servants, 
for they were not allowed even to threaten 
them. This principle carried out, would 
make an end of chattel slavery, such is hu- 
man nature, under every modification yet 
known, that chattel slavery can be maintain- 
ed only by physical force, which holds the 
slave in constant dread of punishment, and 
which amounts to a constant warfare, not 
only upon his skin, but upon his life. 

5. The reason assigned for the commands 
given to the masters is very far from proving 
that they were slaveholders, or that their 
servants were chattel slaves. This reason is 



138 thf: mnl.K no heuge foh ."-i.avkhy. 

thus stated, '* Knowing that your Master is 
also in heaven ; neither is tlierc respect of 
persons with him." The word, Master, here 
is tlic same as in the direction, only here it is 
singular, kurios, and tliere it is plural, /a/ Wot. 
Translate it slaveholder and it would read 
thus : " Ye slavcholdtrs, do the same things un- 
to them ; knowing that your slaveholder also 
is in heaven." . Or more correctly, " ye mcn- 
ers, do the same things unto them ; know^ing 
that your ou'ne?" also is in heaven."' Every 
one must know that this does not express the 
true sense of tlie apostle. The meaning is, 
tliat they were to conduct themselves justly 
and kindly towards their servants, or inferi- 
ors, because they were the servants of God, 
to whom they must render an account for 
their conducl. Now the word kurios not on- 
ly means God as a name of the Supreme Be- 
ing, hut it also signifies a ruler. Jt is deriv- 
ed from kuros, authority. Translate it by 
ruler and the whole connection will be con- 
sistent. " And ye rulers do the same things 
unto them ; knowing that your ruler h in 
heaven." It would be a good translation to 
render it lord, thus, " And ye lords, do the 
same things unto them ; knowing that your 
Lord also is in heaven." It is so translated in 
several texts. It is thus rendered in the 
]^arable of the talents, ^Matt. xxiv. 14-oU. 
" After a long time the lordo^ those servants 
cometh." ^M any other cases might be cited' 
where it is thus rendered. In the reason 
then, so far as regards the fact that they have 
a master in heaven, slavery gets no support. 
j*)ut what is adiniK^d of tlio masler in hoav- 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOll SLAVERY. 130 

eii, as an additional reason for the command, 
does not favor slavery. "Neither is there 
respect of persons with him." These masters 
Avere admonished to conduct themselves prop- 
erly towards their servants, because there 
was no respect of persons w^ith their master 
in heaven. It appears to me this reason de- 
stroys the idea of slavery, and proves that 
no such unequal relation can rightfully exist 
among Christians. The expression, respect 
of persons, comes from the Greek word, pro- 
sopoleepsia, the clear and undeniable sense of 
which is, that God, their master in heaven, 
regarded the two clases of persons here 
named, masters and servants, just alike, giv- 
ing them equal rights, and governing them 
on equal principles. It means that God does 
not favor one more than another. It means 
nothing less and nothing more, and nothing 
else. The word is thus briefly defined, " an 
excepting of or respect of persons, partiality." 
It appears to me that God cannot sanction 
chattel slavery, without being a respecter of 
persons, or being partial. The charge does 
not lie against other destinctions and differ- 
ences which exist among men. One is poor, 
and another is rich, but they all have the 
same right to seek and gain riches, and the 
riches on one] hand and the poverty on the 
other, are often the result of human actions 
which God condemns. But if slavery be 
right, men are made slaves prospectively be- 
fore they are born, by a rule of God's moral 
government, and without any reference to 
their prospective conduct, and they are born 
into the world without the right to seek for 



140 THE BIBLS N'O UEFL'GB FOR SLAVERY. 

themselves the common advantages of life. 
If God be ilie author of this ; if he has con- 
ferred upon one class of persons, the right to 
lay tlicir hands upon another class as they 
come into the world, and a])propriate them to 
their own use and behoof, there is respect of 
persons with God, the very thing which Paul 
denies in addressing masters, as the ground 
of the commands he gives them. Thus is it 
seen that the reason which the apostle assigns 
for his directions cuts up the foundation prin- 
ciple of chattel slavery, and destroys the 
system root and branch. 

I have now shown that the text under con- 
sideration docs not contain slavery, that it is 
not clear that it treats of the thing at all, and 
I will pass to notice briefly the second point. 

II. If it were admitted tliat the text treats 
of slavery, it does not follow that slavery is 
right, for it in no sense justifies the necessary 
assum])tions of a chattel slaveholder. 

1. The directions given to the servants is 
no more than might be given to chattel slaves 
as a means of promoting their own interests, 
without the slightest endorsement of the mas- 
ters right to hold them. Suppose a man to 
be held wrongfully as a slave, without the 
power to escape from the grasp of his 0})])res- 
sor, what would a friend advise him to do ? 
Just what the apostle has commanded in the 
case before us. I would say, obey your mas- 
ter in every thing that the law of Christiani- 
ty Avill allow you to do, and obey with visible 
fear and trembling, for such a course is the 
only means of securing such treatment as 
will render life oudurable. Self interest 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 141 

would not only dictale such a course, but 
duty to God would demand it. Christians 
are bound to pursue a course, within the lim- 
its of what may and may not be done, as will 
render their own lives most peaceful and 
comfortable, and enable them to be most use- 
ful to their fellow creatures in leading them 
to embrace the same blessed Christianity. 
With a slave, unable to escape from his 
chains, such a course would be just the one 
pointed out by the apostle in the text under 
consideration. And it is a very striking 
fact that the apostle makes no appeal to the 
master's rights as a reason for 4iis directions, 
but appeals exclusively to the duty they owe 
to God. He even goes so far as to exclude 
all together the master with all of his suppos- 
ed rights from the considerations and motives 
that are to govern them in their obedience. 
They are not to do it "as men-pleasers, but 
as the servants of Christ doing the will of 
God from the heart ; with good will doing 
service, as to the Lord and not to men.'' If 
they were not to do the service as to men, it 
must follow that men had no rightful claim 
on those service, and the obedience is com- 
manded not because slavery is right, but be- 
cause under the circumstances, it was neces- 
sary to promote their own comfort and the 
interests of Christianity. Upon the supposi- 
tion that there was real chattel slavery in- 
volved, there is not the slightest endorsement 
of the system found in the directions given to 
the servants. And surely it should be found 
in the directions given to the servants, 
if any where. If slavery be a heaven or- 
dained institution, it might appear neces- 



142 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

sary to teach the slaves lliat it is riglit, 
and iliat they owe service to their masters, 
but it would hardly be necessary to leach 
masters that they had a riglit to hold their 
slaves, least they should let them go. I say 
therefore that if there is any jusiilication of 
slavery, it should be found in the directions 
given to the servants, and yet there is not the 
sliglitest intimation that they owe their mas- 
ters' service, but they are forbidden to do ser- 
vice as to men, but are required to do it as 
to God. The fact then that tliere is not the 
slightest justification of slavery in the direc- 
tions given to tlie servants, renders it quite 
clear that the apostle did not design to justi- 
fy slavery. 

2. There is no justification of slavery found 
in the directions given to the masters, upon 
the supposition that they were chattel slave- 
liolders. What they are commanded to do 
was undoubtedly right, but there is not a 
word said in these commands which implies 
that it is right to hold a fellow being as a 
chattel slave. The argument for slavery does 
not depend so much upon what is said to the 
masters as upon what is not said, and upon 
assumed facts. The argument is this ; they 
were slaveholders, and members of the church, 
and the apostle wrote to them, giving rules 
lor the regulation of their conduct as mas- 
ters, and did not cotninand then) to emanci- 
pate their slaves, or forbid them to hold 
slaves. This, it is insisted, is an implied en- 
dorsement of slavery. This is the strongest 
form that can be given to the argument, and 
in this shaj)e I will meet it in this ])lace. 

(1.) The argument is unsound becnusc it 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 143 

takes for granted the main point to be prov- 
ed, viz : that they v^^ere really chattel slave- 
holders. The words do not prove that to be 
a fact. It is first taken for granted that slave- 
ry existed, and then the words are construed 
in the light of this assumption. As the words 
do not prove the existence of chattel slavery, 
it should be proved that it did exist, before it 
can be affirmed that the apostle did treat of 
slavery, or that slaveholders were members 
of the church. This, on my part, is a falling 
back upon a previous argument, which I do 
to make the argument entire in this place, 
and not to make it the main issue, as the reader 
will soon see. 1 have shown that there is no 
proof found in the text that it treats of chat- 
tel slavery. This renders the assertion that 
slaveholders were in the church, and hence 
that the apostle wrote to slaveholders, and 
gave them directions how to conduct them- 
selves as such, were assumptions, a begging 
of the question. But 1 will wave this, and 
meet the issue upon the assumption that it 
was chattel slavery of which Paul treated. 

(2 ) If it be admitted that slaveholders were 
members of the church at the time this epistle 
was written, it vv^ill not follow that it is right. 
Many wrong practices found their way into 
the church, and many persons were acknowl- 
edged members of the church who did not 
conform in all matters to the doctrines and 
precepts of Christianity. It is to be borne in 
mind that the best of the members were fresli 
converts irom heathenism ; with all its dark- 
ness and corruptions ; that there was not per- 
vading the community outside of the church. 



144 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

that general religious light that now pervades 
the comnaunity outside of the church in this 
country, and that there were not there as 
many sources of light as there is now among 
us, and not the same general prevalence of 
education, and Christian libraries containing 
tlie well defined fundamental principles of 
morality and human duty. Under such cir- 
cumstances, the church drawing her recruits 
from amid the dark corruptions of heathenism, 
by sudden conversions, she could not but be 
liable to a constant influx of darkness to be 
enlightened, and corruption to be purged out. 
i( it could be proved that slaveholders were 
in the church, under such circumstances, it 
would not follow that it is right without a spe- 
cific endorsement of the thing itself, since 
many persons got into the church who were 
very wrong in some of their practices. In 
writing to the Corinthian church, "unto the 
church of God which is at Corinth, to them 
that are sanctified in Christ Jesus ;'' Paul 
said, "Awake to righteousness and sin not ; 
for some have not the knowledge of God : I 
speak this to your shame." 1 Cor. xv. 34. 
Other texts might be cited to show that there 
were bad men connected with the church, 
and men who were partially enlightened, and 
but partially reformed of their heathen prac- 
tices. The fact then that a slaveholdershould 
be found in connection with such a church, 
would not prove slaveholding to be right 
without a specific endorsement. This com- 
pels the advocate of slavery to fall back upon 
the actual words of the apostle for proof that 
slavery is right, leaving no ground to infer 



"^HE BIBLE KO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 145 

'that it is right, because he finds it in the 
'church. But I have ah'eady proved that the 
words of the apostle contain no endorsement 
oi slavery ; that in addressing servants con- 
•cerning their duty, he sets up no claim of 
rights on behalf of the master, and that he 
only urges the rights cf God ; and that in ad- 
dressing masters, he makes no allusion to 
their rights as masters, but urges, on the 
ground of tlieir accountibility to God, a course 
■of conduct entirely inconsistent with chattel 
slaver} . If these slaveholders got into church, 
-so did other wrong doers get into the church, 
while Paul, in addressing these slaveholders 
as a specific elass, commanded them to pur- 
sue a course which amounted to an entire 
abolition of chattel slavery. Where then is 
the proof that slavery is right, upon the sup- 
position that slaveholders were in the church ? 
It is not found in the fact that they were in 
the church, because persons were in the 
church who practiced what is wrong; and it 
is not found in the nature of the directions 
the apestles gave these slaveholdeis, for he 
directed them to pursue a course which was 
an abandonment of all coersive slavery. If 
then slavery is not proved to be right by the 
fact that it v/as in the church, nor yet by the 
apostles' directions on the subject, there is no 
proof in the text that it is right, allowing 
slavery to be the subject treated. I have now 
disposed of another of the strong texts claim- 
ed by the advocates of slavery, by proving 
first, that it is not clear that it treats of slave- 
ry, and secondly, that if it does treat of slave- 



146 THE BIBLK NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERV. 

ry, it contains no endorsement of the practice 
of slaveholding. 

PAUL TO THE COLLOSSIANS DOES NOT JUSTIFY 
SLAVERY. 

"Servants, obey in all things your masters 
accordii g to the flesh ; not with eye service 
as men y)leasers ; but in singleness ot" heart 
fearing God ; and whatsoever ye do, do it 
Iieartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men ; 
knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the 
reward of the inheritance ; for ye serve the 
Lord Christ, But he that doeth wrong, shall 
receive for the wrong which he hath done : 
and there is no respect of persons.'' Col. iii, 
22-25. 

"Masters, give unto your servants that 
which is just and equal ; knowing that ye also 
have a master in heaven.'' Col. iv. 1. 

These texts, though quoted from different 
chapters, constitute but one subject. The 
first verse of the fourth chapter belongs to 
the third chapter, and should not have been 
separated from it. We have then befo^'e us 
the direction of Paul, both to servants and 
masters in the same connection, and will ex- 
amine the subject and see if it contains an 
endorsement of slavery. 

The sameqrestions are involved that have 
been discussed in relation to other texts, viz : 
does the text treat of slavery at all ? and if 
so, does it prove it to be right ? 

This text is so nearly like Eph. vi. 5-9, in 
its language, which has already been examin- 
ed, that on several ])oints it will only be ne- 
cessary to refer the reader to what was said 



THE BIBLE NO KEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 147 

upon that text. Tliere can be no doubt from 
the similarity of the two passages, both being 
written by the same hand, that they both re- 
late to the same class of persons. If slave- 
holders and slaves were treated of in the for- 
mer text, they are in this. On the other hand, 
if I succeeded in proving that the former text 
does not treat of slaveholders and slaves, and 
that it does not justify slavery, upon the sup- 
position that chattel slavery is involved, the 
same conclusion must follow in regard to the 
text now under consideration. It would 
therefore now be safe for the argument to 
leave this text to be understood in the light 
of the argument advanced upon the former. 
But as there are a few expressions found in 
this, not contained in that, I will examine it, 
after first naming those points which were 
fully explained while examining the former 
passage. 

1. The terms, servants and masters have 
been sufficiently explained. It has been shown 
that no reliable conclusion can be drawn from 
the use of these terms in support of chattel 
slavery. 

2. The qualifying adjunct, "according to 
the flesh," was there fully explained. The 
reader has only to apply the remarks there 
made on this expression to this text, and he 
will realize its force. 

3. The expression, "not with eye service as 
men pleasers," was there explained. 

4. The duty here enjoined, of obeying "in 
singleness of heart," and of doing their duty 
"as to the Lord and not unto men/' was there 



148 THE BIBLK NO REFUGE FUR SLAVERY. 

sufficiently discussed, and the argument need 
not be repeated liere 

5. The declaration here found, that both, 
the wrong and the right, shall be rewarded 
at the hand of God, and that with him "their 
is no respect of persons," was sufficiently ex- 
plained in the former text, and shown to be ir- 
reconcilable with chattel slavery. On all 
these points the reader can refer to the expo- 
sition aheady given of the preceeding text," 
better than to have the matter repeated here. 
This leaves but a few point.s, where the lan- 
guage varies, to be examined, to which I will 
now attend. 

I. Jt is not clear that the text was addres- 
sedto slaves and slaveholders. 

1. It is not proved by the direction given 
to the servants. "Servants obey in all things 
your masters according to the flesh." This 
is the only point of difference between this 
and the former text, and it adds no force to 
the argument in support of slavery. To 
obey "in all things" can mean no more than 
to do every thing which is commanded, which 
does not conflict with the law of God, which 
is not a violation of the rules of the gospel. 
To understand the words without this limita- 
tion, would hold servants under a divine obli- 
gation to commit murder at the command of 
the master, to be the tormenter of father or 
mother, or to submit to a base violation of 
person and purity. Such cannot be the case, 
and hence the command to obey in all things, 
must be limited by what is right; and. those 
to whom belongs the work of obedience, and 
not those who claim obedience, must belong 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 149 

the privilege of judging what is right, or hov^ 
far the commands of masters can be obeyed 
without sin against God. This limitation of 
the servants obligation to obey must destroy 
chattel slavery. The smallest reserve of the 
right of judgment, on the part of slaves, must 
destroy the foundation work of slavery. This 
was shown in the examination of the preceed- 
ing text, and need not be further pressed in 
this place. It is clearly seen that no com- 
mand to servants, to obey their masters, can 
prove the existence of chattel slavery, which 
is not absolute, and without any reserve on 
the part of the servant, of the right of judging 
for himself what he may do, and what he may 
not do. If the servant may say, i will not 
sin when my master commands me to, or I 
will pray to God when my master commands 
me not to, there is an end of chattel slavery. 
That such a limitation is implied in this text 
is clear. Without this limitation, without 
this reserved right on the part of the servant, 
their could be no such thing as right and 
wrong with the servant between him and 
God ; the will of the master would be his only 
law, and he could have no right to act with 
reference to God. But Paul here commands 
these very servants to act with reference to 
God, to act, "as to theLord and not unto men," 
and assures them that "of the Lord" they 
should "receive the reward," if they do right, 
and that "he that doeth wrong shall receive 
for the wrong which he halh done." This 
proves that God did claim the right to govern, 
reward and punish these servants, and 'hence 
that thev were to obcv their masters only so 



150 THE RIDLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

far as was consistent with their higher duty 
to GoH, and the conclusion is irresistible that 
the directions of the apostle not only fail to 
prove that they were chattel slaves, but act- 
ually strike a blow at the very foundations of 
the system. The directions contain a p/in- 
ciple which, like a consuming fire., must burn 
up and consume chattel slavery where ever 
the principle is applied. This principle is 
direct accountability to God, which the 
apostle iiere asserts, concerning these ser- 
vants. Direct accountability to God, sup- 
poses a right to know the will of God, a right 
to judge of what that will requires, and a 
right to do that will. All this is implied in 
the words of the apostle when he commands 
them to act " as to God and not unto men," 
and assures them that they will receive of the 
Lord for the good or evil they do. It is clear 
therefore that the apostle's directions to these 
servants do not prove the existence of slave- 
ry, but overturn its very foundation principle. 
2. The existence of slavery is not proved 
by what the apostle commands masters to do, 
"Masters, give unto your servants that which 
is just and equal." This does not prove that 
the apostle was addressing slaveholders. Here 
are persons called masters, and the first ques- 
tion in issue is, were they chattel slavehol- 
ders ? but a command to give to their servants 
"that which is just and equal," cannot prove 
It, for the same thing is required of all men 
towards all other men, with whom they have 
any deal or intercourse. It is only an appli- 
cation of a universal principle to a specific 
class, and it is just as aj)plical)le to hired 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SIAVERY. 151 

laborers and apprentices, as it is to bond 
slaves. The very thing required does not 
and cannot exist in a state oi chattel slavery. 
Justice and equality are required, and they 
cannot exist in harmony with s^lavery, as will 
fulh^ appear under my next argument. How 
perfectly clear is 14; then that Paul could not 
-have been addressing slaves and slaveholder?, 
and giving directions for the regulation of 
iheir conduct as such, when he ordered that 
which is absolutely inconsistent with the re- 
Jation of slave owner and slave owned. 

Having now shown sufficiently clear that 
there is no sufficient proof that the text under 
eonsideration has any reference to chattel 
slavery, I will proceed to the second general 
branch of my argum.ent, 

II. If it were adm.itted that the text was 
raddressed specifically to slaves and slavehol- 
ders, it would not follow that slavery is right, 
inasmuch as it contains no justification of 
slavery. 

Waving all that has been said, let me now 
examine the text upon the supposition, it was 
addressed to men owners and men owned, 
.and see if there is any thing in it which can 
be tortured into a justification of the system. 

1. The justificat'on is not found in the 
4Jommand to obej^ This has been fully ex- 
plained and dem.onstrated in preceeding argu- 
ments. It might just as well be argued that 
when Christ says, "If any man will sue thee 
.at the law, and takes away thy coat, let him 
have thy cloak also, '' he justifies the suing, 
.^nd the taking of both, the coat and the cloak, 



15*2 I'HE BIBLE Xu REFUGE FOR SLaVERV^^ 

as to argue that slavery is right, because 
slaves are required to obey. 

It has been shown that the obligation to 
obey is limited to what is right in itself, and 
obedience, so tar as it can be rendered witii- 
out a violation of the law of God, is the best 
course a slave can pursue, until such time as 
an opportunity presents for him to obtain his 
liberty. 

2. The justification is not found in what 
the masters are commanded to do. Here I 
meet the point, eflectually. W real slavery 
did exist there, the apostle commanded its ab- 
olition. This he did in these words; "Mis- 
ters give wnto yoi^r servants that which is 
Just and equal.'' They were then first, to give 
their servants that which is just. The Greek 
word, dikaion, the neuter of dikaios, is truly 
rendered by our English word just ; it signi- 
fies just, upright, righteous. If then slavery 
existed the apostle interdicted it, unless it be 
first proved to be just, upright or lighteous^. 
To assume that the apostle did not condemn 
slavery, much more to assume that he justifi- 
ed it, when he commanded slaveholders ta 
give their slaves tiiat which is just, is to beg 
the whole question in debate. The com- 
mand to give them that which is jusr, does 
not define what is just and what is not, hence, 
it cannot prove that slavery is right, until it 
first be proved that slavery is just. But if 
liberty be the just right of every individual, 
then l\aul commanded the master to give- 
them their liberty. If slavery existed, it 
must follow that the apostle commanded its 
abolition, unless it can first be proved iha\ 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLxVVERY. 153 

slavery is just. This can never be done ; it 
cannot be just that one man should own an- 
other man, or that one man should be com- 
pelled to serve another man all lil'e long, with- 
out his consent and without pay. To deny 
that the apostle commands the liberation of 
the slaves, if slaves they were, is to beg the 
whole question in dispute, by taking it for 
granted that slavery is just, the main point 
which should be proved. Allow that they 
were slaveholders and slaves, and that the 
apostle commands the slaveholders to give to 
their slaves that which is just without intima- 
ting what that is, for he lays dovv'n no rule to 
determine what justice requires in the case, 
and the fairest assumption in the world is that 
all forced service is unjust, and that justice 
requires all masters to desist from compel- 
ling service against the will of the servant. 
But secondly, the apostie commanded them to 
give their servants that which is equal. The 
Greek word isoteeta, which is the accusative 
case of isotees signifies equality. It is derived 
from isos, which signifies equal, on a level, 
equal to or an equivalent : hence isotees whicli 
is derived from it, signifies equality, parity, 
equity, impartiality. The word here used 
occurs in but one other text in the New Tes- 
tament. It is 2 Cor. viii. 14, in which it oc- 
curs twice in the same verse, and is translated 
equality in both cases. If the reader refers to 
the Greek Testament, he will find the first oc- 
currence of the word in the 13th verse, as 
the first half of the 14th veise in the English 
version, is attached to the 13th in the Greek. 
The apostle then commands slaveholders to 



154 THE BIBLE NU KEFiGE FOR SLAVERY. 

give to their slaves equdlily, or parity. Tiiis 
certainly must destiuy tlie clialtel j'riiiciple, 
and secure to the laborer a just compensation 
for his labor. There is no equalit}-, parity, 
equity, or impartiality, in one man's owning 
another, and receiving his labor without com- 
pensation. The apostle therefore commands 
what cannot be reconciled with chattel slave- 
ry, and of course he did not justify it. 

But waving all criticism, the sim})le words 
of the English text, '' that which is just and 
equal," can mean no less than that which is 
right, that which is fairly their due, and this 
of itself would destroy slavery at once and 
forever. 

1 will here quote from Rev. A. Barnes' 
notes on the text, as his lemarks fully cover 
this point. He says: " They were to render 
them that which is just and equal. Wha 
would folKnv from this if fairly applied? 
What would be just and equal to a man in 
those circumstances ? Would it be to com- 
pensate him fairly for his labor; to lurnish 
him an adequate renumeration for what he 
earned ? But this would strike a blow at the 
root of slavery, for one of the elementary 
princi})les is, that there must be unrequited 
labor. 

"If a man should in fact, render to his 
slaves that which is just and equal, would he 
not restore them to freedom ? Have they not 
been deprived of their liberty by injustice, 
and would not justice restore it ? What has 
the slave done to forfeit his libesty ? If he 
should make him ecjual in riirhts to himself, or 
to what he is by nature, would he not eman- 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOB SLAVERY. 155 

cipate him ? Can he be held at all without a 
violation of all the just notions of equity. 
Though, therefore it may be true that this 
passage only enjoins the rendering of. what 
was just and equal in their condition, yet it 
contains a principle which would lay the axe 
at the root of slavery, and would lead a con- 
scientious Christian to the feeling that his 
slaves ought to be free.'' 

The above extract is decisive, for if it be 
admitted, consequences must follow fatal to 
slavery. Let us look at it upon the assump- 
tion, that the text justifies slavery,and see what 
a harmony of all kinds of contradictions it 
will produce. 

To obey it, a man would have to "restore 
his slaves to freedom.'' If then the text jus- 
tifies slavehoiding, it justifies disobedience to 
its own command. They were ''deprived of 
their liberty by injustice, and justice would 
restore it." Then if the text justifies slave- 
holding, it justifies injustice. 

Slaves cannot "be held at all without a vio- 
lation of all just notions of equity." Then 
if the text justifies slavehoiding, it justifies a 
violation of all the just notions of equity." 
"It contains a principle which would lay the 
axe at the root of slavery.'' If then it justi- 
ces slavery, it lays the axe at the root of the 
thing it justifies. 

It " would lead a conscientious Christian 
to feel that his slaves ought to be free.'' If 
then it justifies slavehoiding, it justifies men 
in acting contrary to their concientious feel- 
ings. Such are the contradictions involved 



if we, in the light of Mr. Barns' notes, allow 
that the text justifies slaveholding. 

I may at this point claim that I have dis- 
posed of another of the supposed strong texts- 
in support of slavery, and will dismiss itwit}> 
w^hat has been said.. 

PAUL TO TIMOTHY DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY. 

" Let as many servants as are under the 
yoke count their own masters worthy of all 
honor, that the name of God and his doctrine 
be not blasphemed. And they that have be- 
lieving masters, let them not despise them, 
because they are brethren ; but rather do' 
them service, because they are faithful and 
beloved,partakersof the benefit. ''1 Tim.vi. 1,2, 

This text has been supf)0sed by some, the 
most difficult one in the New Testament, for 
an anti-slavery expositor to dispose of. Jf^ 
however, the reader will keep his mind on ihfr 
real issue, the text will furuish no very hard 
task. The question is, does the text prove 
American slavery to be righ't ? I am not 
bound, in this issue, to prove that slavery is 
wrong; the advocate of slavery is bound to- 
prove that this text justifies slavery, that it 
contains principles which are not only appli- 
cable to American slavery, but which, when 
applied, prove it to be right. 1 am bound, in 
a iair reply, to prove no more than that it con- 
tains no such justification ol slavery. That 
will not be a hard task. But I will be gener- 
ous and do more than the i.ssue demands of 
me. 

I. It is not suflicicntlv certain that the 



THE BIBLE Xo REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 157 

text treats of slaves and slaveholders, so as 
to render it a conclusive argument in support 
of the rightful existence of slavery. The 
whole ground has been gone over in the exam- 
ination of other texts, with the exception of 
two additional points, which this text presents, 
viz. that some servants were under the yoke, 
and some had believing masters. 

If slavery is not found in one or the other 
of these points, it is not found in the text, all 
other points having been already examined. 

The first question then is, does, being un- 
der the.yoke, imply slavery. It certainly is 
not sufficiently clear that the yoke implies 
slavery to justify a reliance upon it to prove 
the fact that slavery existed. 

1. The Greek word zugon, here rendered 
yoke, does not mean slavery. It literally 
means the yoke by which oxen, horses and 
mules are coupled together for draught. 
Hence it means anything, that joins tw^o things 
together. It may be used in a metaphorical 
sense. The use of a v/ord in a metaphorical 
sense, cannot determine what the thing is to 
which it is applied, since the known character 
of the thing to which it is applied, alone can 
determine in what metaphorical sense the 
word is used. If it were first proved that the 
servants were slaves, it would follow that 
yoke, as applied to them, means slavery, but 
that is so far from being the case, that the ap- 
plication of the word yoke to them, is relied 
upon to pro\e that they were slaves, and the 
whole argument must fall. It is reduced to 
a circle, thus : They were slaves because they 
were under the voke, which meanF^ slavery. 



158 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. '^ 

The term yoke means slavery, as applied to 
them, because tliey were slaves, Such argu- 
ments prove nothing. 

2. There is no other instance in the New 
Testament, in which the word is used to de- 
note anything like slavery. It is used in only 
six instances. In one, Rev. vi., 5, it is used 
with strict reference to its literal sense. It 
is here translated a " pair of balances, " be- 
cause the two parts are fastened tot^ether by 
the beam. In every other case it is used met- 
aphorically. Christ uses it twice, iMatt. xi. 
29, 30, '' Take my yoke upon you.» "My 
yoke is easy." Here it means the moral ( 

obligations of the gospel. As though he had , 

said, take the profession and duties of my re- •• 

ligion upon you. There is no slavery in this, 
though there are obligations which bind them i, 

to Christ. The same word is found Acts xv. V 

10, "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon 
the necks of the disciples." Here it means ; 

the obligations of the Mosaic law, not slavery. 

The other text is Gal. v., 1, "Stand last t 

therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath 
made us free, and be not entangled agai i 
with the yoke of bondage." Her^ the yoke 
of bondage is the obligations of the Mosaic 
law. Yoke means obligation, and bondage 
means service. U would be just as good a 
translation to render it, "be not entangled 
again with the obligation of service." k 

Apply these facts to the text under consi- 
deration, and there will be no slaveiy in 
it. "As many servants as are under the 
yoke," understand obligation, by yoke, for it 
means any thing that hinds or couples to- 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 



159 



gether, and it will be plain. " Let as many 
servants as are under obligation." 

But the Greek word, hosos, rendered " as 
many as"— for these three words in the Eng- 
lish text come from the one in Greek — is not 
translated in its only admissible sense. Dr. 
McKnight renders it whatever. " Whatever 
servants." It often has this sense, but 
this does not exhaust its meaning. The fol- 
lowing are the principal senses in which the 
word is used : Of size, 'as great as ;" of quan- 
tity, ''as much as ;" of space or distance, "as 
far as ;" of time, "as long as;" of number, "as 
manv as ;" of sound, "as loud as.'^ It is used 
of time in six texts in the New Testament, 
Matt. ix. 15: "Can the children of the bride- 
chamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is 
with them." 

Mark ii. 19. ''As long as they have the 
bridecrroom with them they cannot fast." 

Eom. vii. 1. "The law hath dominion over 
a man as long as he liveth." 

1 Cor. vii. 39. " The wife is bound by the 
law as long as her husband liveth." 

Gal. iv. i."The heir, a^/o?i^a5 he is achild, 
differeth nothing from a servant." 

2 Peter, i. 13. " I think it meet, as long as 
lam in this tabernacle, to stir you up." 

Give the word ihe same sense m the text 
under consideration, and it will read, "As long 
as servants are under obligation let them 
count their own masters worthy of all honor." 
There is certainly but little slavery in the 
text in this form, and it is perfectly clear that 
there would never have been any in it, had 
not the translators and readers first originated 



IGU THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FoR SLAVERY, 

slavery in their own minds, to make zugon 
mean the yoke, tliat is, the bondage of chattel 
slavery- 

If then there is no slavery in the yoke, or in 
being under the yoke was there any in the 
fact that some had believing masters? Sure- 
ly not, for if the unbelieving masters were 
not chattel slaveholders, it cannot be pretend- 
ed that the believing masters were. If the 
servants of the unbelieving blaspheming mas- 
ters were not slaves, it cannot be supposed 
that the servants of the believing masters 
were. 

II. If the above argument be all thrown 
aside, and it be admitted that the servants un- 
der the yoke were chattel slaves, it will not 
follow that slavery is right. There is no jus- 
tification of slavery in the text, upon the sup- 
position that slavery is the thing treated of. 
Let it be borne in mind that I must not now 
reason upon the principles of my exposition 
of the text given above, that is based upon 
the assumption that there was no slavery in 
the case. In admiftirg that slavery existed, 
and that Paul treated of it, for the sake of 
the argument, I must set that exposition aside 
and iall back upon the pro-slavery glass. 
Where then, I demand, is the proof that slav- 
ery is right, that Paul sanctioned it ? 

1. It is not found in the fact that Paul com- 
manded the servants under the yoke to ''count 
their own masters worthy of all honor. '^ 
The only reason assigned for the command, 
is "that the name of God and his doctrine be 
not blasphemed." 'J'here is no intimation 
that the mnsters had a rightful claim upon 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 161 

them, but they were wicked men, who, if 
their christian servants did not render to them 
obedience and respect, would blaspheme the 
nameof the Christian's God and oppose Chris- 
tianity. But why did not Paul command 
these v^ncked masters to emancipate their 
slaves, if he condemned, or did not mean to 
sanction slavery ? The answer is plain. 

(1.) He was not writing to them, but to 
Timothv concerning the church. 

(2.) He had no power or influence over 
these wicked heathen masters to command 
them. 

(3.) Such a command, concerning them, 
would have produced the very thing his di- 
rection concerning servants was designed to 
prevent. It would have been an occasion of 
their blaspheming the name of God and his 
doctrine. Such a command, issued by Paul 
to Timothy, concerning these wicked blas- 
pheming masters, might have led to the des- 
truction of the infant church in that place. It 
was better therefore not to meet the question 
by a specific rule, only so far as to instruct 
servants so to conduct themselves towards 
their masters, as to provoke their wrath and 
opposition as little as possible, and leave the 
matter lo the action of the gospel which 
would abolish slavery as fast as men were 
brought under its influence. 

2. No sanction of slavery is found in the 
directions given to those servants who had 
believing nVasters. This verse comes far short 
of expressing the full sense of the original. 
The present form of the text appears to inti- 
mate that servants were in danger of despis- 



102 TUR BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 

ing tlieir masters because they were brelhi-en, 
whereas llie fact that ihey were brethren in 
no sense (ended to produce such a result, but 
is a good reason for not despising them, and 
is so designed by the apostle. Tiiis will be 
made plain by rendering the Greek word, hotiy 
for ; which is now rendered because. " Let 
them not despise i\\Q\w for they are brethren.'' 
It is so translated in more than two hundred 
and twenty-five texts. 

The word partakers, does not begin to ex- 
press the force of the Greek word, antilamba- 
7iojnenoi, from which it is translated. This 
word is compounded of anti^ in turn, lambano, 
to take, or receive, and hence the compound 
word as used by the aposlle, means partakers 
in turn. Dr. Clarke renders it '"joint partak- 
ers," but his rendering is not as strictly in ac- 
cordance with the original as mine. 

The word translated benifit is euergesias, 
which literally means well doing, ^ood con- 
duct. It occurs in but one other text, Acts 
iv. y, where it is translated, "good deed done." 
Now let me read the verse according to these 
renderings. 

"And they that have believing masters let 
them not despise them, for they are brethren, 
but rather do them service, because they are 
faithful and beloved, partakers in turn of the 
well doing." 

This clearly makes the last clause lefer to 
the servants, as faiihful and beloved partakers 
in turn of the benefit of their own labor ; that 
is, they were paid for their service. This re- 
moves all tiie difiiculty that critics have met 
with in this part of the text. Dr. McKnight 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 163 

affirms that benefit, cannot refertogospel ben- 
efit or salvation, and Dr. Clarke agrees with 
him, but intimates that it may refer to the 
benefits the servants receive from their mas- 
ters, but has failed to explain how. Rev. A. 
Barns denies that it can refer to the fact that 
the master receives the benefit of the servants 
labor, because that can be no special motive 
to the servant to serve faithfully, the force of 
which all must feel. He therefore construes 
it to mean the benefit which the gospel im- 
parts ; the very thing which Drs. McKnight 
and Clarke deny. The advantage of my 
translation is, it escapes both these difficul- 
ties, besides being more in accordance with 
the sense of the original, making the true 
sense to run thus : Let them not despise them, 
but rather let them do them service, because 
they, the servants, are faithful and beloved, 
partakers in turn of the well doing, by receiv- 
ing a fair compensation for their labor. I 
have no doubt this is what Paul meant, and 
surely it is entirely free from any direct or 
implied sanction of chattel slavery. 

I have now shown, first, that it is very far 
from being clear that there is real slavery in- 
volved in any part of the text ; and secondly, 
that if those servants who are said to be un- 
der the yoke, were slaves, that slavery exist- 
ed outside of the church, and those servants 
who served believing masters,were not slaves, 
but served voluntarily for wages received. 



164 THE BIBLE SO RIFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 
PAUL TO PHILEMON DOES xN'OT JUSTIFYSLAYERY. 

This epistle of Paul to Philemon has been 
claimed as one of the strongest proofs of the 
existence of slavery in the primitive churches 
under apostolic sanction. As it is both brief 
and important I will first spread upon my 
page that portion which is supposed to relate 
to slavery, and then proceed to examine it. 

Paul was a prisoner in Rome, and Philemon 
is suppoeed to have been an inhabitant of Co- 
losse. Paul wrote him a letter by a person 
named Onesimus, in which the following 
w^ords occurred concerning the bearer: 

I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom 
I have uegotten in my bonds ; which in time 
past was to thee unprofitable, but now profit- 
able to thee and to me; whom I have sent 
again r'thou therefore receive him, that is my 
own bowels ; whom I would have retained 
with me, that in thy stead he might have min- 
istered unto me in the bonds of the gospel ; 
but without thy mind would 1 do nothing; 
that thy benefit should not be as it were of 
necessity, but willingly. 

For perhaps he therefore departed for a 
season, that thou shouldest receive him for 
ever ; not now as a servant, but above a ser- 
vant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but 
how much m(^re unio thee, both in the fiesh, 
and in the Lord ? If thou count me there- 
fore a partner, receive him as myself, If he 
hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put 
that on mine account : I Paul have written it 
with my own hand, I will repay it: albeit I 
do not say to thee how thou owest unto mo 



THE B1BL£ NO REt^UGE FOR SLAVERY. 166 

even thine own self besides. Yea, brother, 
let me have joy of thee in the Lord : refresh 
my bowels in the Lord. Having confidence 
in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing 
that thou wilt also do more than I say.'' 

It is assured from the above record that 
Philemon was a slaveholder, and that Onesi- 
mus was his slave, and that the slave, having 
run away from his master, St. Paul sent him 
back to the house of bondage from which h3 
had escaped. 

It is certainly remarkable on what slight 
evidence such grave conclusions are made to 
rest. There is no certain proof that there w^as 
any chattel slavery in the case, but undeni- 
able and unanswerable proof that Onesimus 
was not a slave. 

L The evidence relied upon to prove the 
main facts in support of slavery is wholly in- 
sufficient. The points involved shall be no- 
ticed in order. 

1. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon. 
That he was a servant is implied, not affirm- 
ed. It is said, "that thou shouldst receive 
him forever, not now as a servant {doulon) but 
above a servant, a brother beloved." It is 
freely admitted that these v/ords imply that 
Onesimus had been a servant, but this is no 
proof that he was or had ever been a slave. 
It has been proved in a preceeding argument 
that the word here used, doulos, does not ne- 
cessarily mean a slave but is used to denote 
free hired laborers, ministers and public offi- 
cers. The reader is referred to the inquiry 
into the meaning of this word on page 109. 
Onesimus may then have been a free man in 



166 THE BIBLE NO KflFLGE FOK SLAVi^RV. 

the employ of Philemon, or he may have been 
bound to him, as a minor by his parents or 
guardians, or he may have bound himself to 
serve for a time, and have taken up his wages 
in advance, and then run away. Any of these 
suppositions are much more reasonable than 
to suppose he was a slave. The fact that he 
IS called a servant, doulos, does not and can- 
not prove that he was a slave, for Paul de- 
clares himself to be the servant of Christ, and 
also the servant of the church. 

2. Onesimus run away from Philemon, or 
left his employ improperly and without his 
consent. This is not affirmed, but is too 
clearly implied to be denied. But this does 
not furnish the slightest proof that he was a 
slave, for slaves aie not the only persons that 
run away. It is not uncommon for indebted 
apprentices, and free persons laboring under 
contracts to depart indebted to the master or 
employer. Such most clearly appears to have 
been the case of Onesimus. That he went 
of in Philemon's debt is more than probable, 
from the expression of St. Paul, "If he hath 
wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that 
to mine account." The wrorging spoken of 
must have been of a property naturel, or it 
could not have been changed even to Paul. 
A crime or moral wrong could not be 
changed over to Paul. It is certain 
therefore that Onesimus must have bor- 
rowed money of Philemon, in which case he 
would have owed him , or he must have taken 
up his wages, or received his pay in advance 
on a contract for service whicli he left without 



Jhe bible no refuge for slavery. 167 

performing, in which case he would have 
wronged him, besides owing him. The whole 
face of the epistle goes much further to prove 
such a departure from pecuniary obligations, 
than from chattel bondage. 

3. Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, 
which is regarded by the advocates of slave- 
ry as proof positive, not only that he was a 
slave, but that it is right and a solemn duty 
to return all fugitive slaves to their masters. 
This is all an unfounded assumption. There 
is no proof that Paul sent him back, in the 
only sense in which a fugitive slave can be 
sent back to his master. One great fact set- 
tles this point, which is this, however clearly 
it may be seen that Paul sent him back, it is 
equally clear that Onesimus went voluntarily, 
of his own free will and accord. This clear- 
ly proves that there could have been no coer- 
cive servitude in the case. Though it must 
appear obvious upon the face of the facts, 
that Onesimus returned voluntarily, it may 
be well to glance at the proof. 

(1.) The expression, " whom I have sent 
again," is not conclusive proof of an authori- 
tative and coercive sending. 1 will save the 
labor of a criticism, by quoting from the Rev. 
A. Barns. That able writer says, ''It is com- 
monly assumed that his returning again was 
at the instigation of the apostle, and that this 
furnishes an instance of. his belief that run- 
away slaves should be sent back to their mas- 
ters. But, besides that their is no certain 
evidence that he ever was a slave, there is as 
little proof that he returned at the instigation 
of Paul, or that his return was not wholly vol- 



68 THE BIBLE SO UfiFUGfi FOR SLAVfiRV. 

untaiy on his part. For the only expression 
which the' apostle uses on this subject (ver. 
12), whom 1 have sent again — anapempa — 
does not necessarily imply that he even pro^ 
posp.d it to him, still less that \\q commanded it. 
It is a word of such general import, that it 
would be employed on the supposition that 
Onesimus desired to return, and that Paul, 
who had a strong wish to retain him, to aid 
him in the same way that Philemon himself 
would do if he were with him (com p. ver. 13,) 
had, on the whole, concluded to part with 
him, and to send hi m^ again, with a letter, to 
his friend Philemon. 'There is nothing in the 
statement which forbids us to suppose that 
Onesimus was ]i\m^Q\'i disposed to return to 
Philemon, and thatlPaul 'sent' him at his own 
request." 

(2.) The apostle had no means of sending 
him back against his own choice. There 
were no marshals to seize and chain fugitive 
slaves and carry them back to their masters. 
There was no provision for paying the expen- 
ses of a forcible return out the public treasury, 
including the chartering of vessels and the 
employment of companies of dragoons. Ptome 
was more than a thousand miles from Colossc, 
where Philemon resided, to whom Onesimus 
is supposed to have been sent, and when wc 
consider that there were then no'sieamboats, 
railroads, mail lines, and expresses by which 
boxed up negroes can now be sent, it must 
be perfectly certain that Paul could not have 
returned Onesimus against his will, without 
an armed governmental express, which Rome 
was never mean enough to provide for the re- 



THE BiDLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 169 

turn of fugitives from boudage. Nor can it 
be supposed that Paul could have secured any 
such arrangement, had the thing been pos- 
sible in itself, for he was at the time a priso- 
ner in bonds. 

(8.) The fact that Onesimus was made the 
bearer of a letter setting forth Paul's wishes, 
and urging Philemon to receive him kindly, 
is irresistible proof that it was all a volun- 
tary operation on the part of Onesimus. Des- 
patched with a communication on a journey 
of more than a thousand Eaiies, he must often 
have had every opportunity to have escaped. 
He could have stopped any where short of 
his journey's end, or gone in any other direc- 
tion, with the most perfect safety to himself, 
for there could have been neither slave 
catcher, marshal or blood hound upon his 
track. 

(4.) To assume that necessity impelled him 
to return to a chattel bondage, on the ground 
that he could not provide for his own wants, 
without a master to do it for him, is too ab- 
surd to be made the basis of an argument. He 
was capable of making his escape, and of find- 
ing his way to Rome, which, at that age, was 
more than it would now be for a man to work 
his way around the world. Paul declares it 
desirable for him to retain Onesimus to ad- 
minister to him in his bonds. It must be clear 
therefore that in Rome he was capable of do- 
ing more than merely to provide for his own 
wants, he was capable of doing that, and as- 
sisting Paul in addition. 

(5.) The supposition that Onesimus return- 
ed to a state of rliattel bondage, as a moral 



duty required by the gospel, is the last antt 
hopeless resort of tlie advocates of slavery, 
it has been sliowu that no other power could 
have accompanied, to conduct him safely to 
his former home against his own will. He 
willed himself to return, or he never would 
have found his way back. Will it then be 
said that by being converted under the labors 
of St. Paul, he became so thoroughly con^- 
vinced that slavery was right, and that Phi- 
lemon had such a right of property in him, as 
to render it his moral and christian duty to 
return to the condition of a chattel bonds- 
man, as a means of glorifying God and saving 
his soul? Nothing else can be said, and to 
say this, is to abandon the argument, besides 
contradicting the universal consciousness oi' 
mankind. 

It abandons the argument, because it gives 
up the point that Paul sent him back as a fu- 
gitive slave, against his own will. The 
moment it is claimed thatOnesimus returned 
from a sense of moral obligation, the idea of 
coercive slavery vanishes, and the most es- 
sential element of American slavery is blot- 
ted from the recoid. In that case there was 
no slavery involved, except such as was sub- 
mitted to' by the slave from choice, since he 
had it in his power to have avoided it had he 
thought best so to do. If American slavery 
was made to rest upon the choice of the 
slaves, we certainly should feel much less dis- 
posed to oppose it than we now do. If the 
("ongress of the United States will so modify 
the fugitive slave bill, as to secure the return 
ot fuf^itivcR onlv bv the use of the i-nme means 



lliK BIDl.F NO HEFrc^K FOR .SLAVERY. 171 

as those by which Onesimus was returned, 
there will 136 no more forcible rescues. There 
are rot wanting enough Doctors of Divinity 
in the North, who claim that slavery is right. 
Now let Congress enact that it shall be law- 
ful for each Doctor of Divinity to advise each 
fugitive slave to return to his master, and on 
obtaining his consent, to write a letter to said 
master, advising and entreating him to receive 
his slave and to put the same into the hand of 
the same fugitive slave. Let Congress fur- 
ther enact, that each slave, having received 
such letter addressed to his master, shall have 
the right of returning, and that it shall not 
be lawful for any abolitionist, judge, sheriff, 
constable or other ofiicer, or any other per- 
son, to prevent, hinder, obstruct or delay his 
return. Such a law would excite little oppo- 
sition among anti-slavery men. 

But to suppose that Onesimus went back to 
chattel bondage from a sense of moral obli- 
gation, is to contradict the universal con- 
sciousness of mankind. No man ever did be- 
lieve, or can believe that it is right that he 
should be held as a chattel slave. Every 
man's consciousness within himself, tells him 
ihat he has a right to himself ; that his head 
and feet, and hands, and ears, and eyes, and 
tongue, and heart, and soul belong to him- 
self, and are not, and cannot be the property 
of another. If Onesimus was converted to a 
belief that he was the rightful property of an- 
other, then has the gospel lost its power, for 
no such conversions take place in these times. 
The most pious slaves in the south would es- 
cape from their mnsters, did they know how 



172 THE BIBLE N^J REFrflE KOR Sf.AVERV. 

to effect it. The writer recently entertained 
a very pious slave, a member of the Methodist 
church in the south, who escaped. So deeply 
impressed was this man of devout prayer, 
that he was wrongfully held, and that it was 
right for him to escape, that he trusted in God 
to assist and protect him in his flight. He 
said he prayed all the way as he traveled, 
that God would guide him in the right way, 
and turn his pursuers from his track. And 
from his narrow escapes, I was inclined to 
believe that God heard his prayer. Witliiii 
the last three months the writer has seen sev- 
eral fugitive slaves converted at the altar at 
which he officiates, and on getting emanci- 
pated from the bondage of sin, a return to 
physical chattel bondage, is the last thought 
that enters their minds. They sliudder at 
the thought of the cruel and polluting touch 
of slavery more than before. It is clear then 
that there is no proof Onesimus was ever a 
chattel slave. 

II. There is much proof upon the face of 
the record that no slavery was involved in 
the relation that existed between Philemon 
and Onesimus. 

1. The simple fact that Paul so earnestly 
exhorted Philemon to receive Onesimus, is 
proof positive that the latter was not return- 
ing as a chattel slave, for no class of men 
have to be so earnestly entreated to receive 
their lost property when it is returned to 
them. Here the apostle talks, "I beseech tliee 
for my son Onesimus, whom I have sent 
again ; thou therefore receive him, that is 
iiiino own bowoU." AVr-'o 10. 12. .\irnin, in 



THE n BLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY 173 

verse IT, he says, ''If tlioii count me tlierelbrc 
a partner, receive him as myself." It is wor- 
thy of remark that Paul does not plead with 
Philemon to abate the punishment Onesimus 
deserved, he does not plead to have him count 
a less number of lashes upon his nacked back ; 
nor yet does he plead with him, not to sell 
his son Onesimus to the slave dealers. There 
is not a word of all this, but he simply pleads 
that he will receive him, the last thing in all 
the world he would need to have asked at his 
hand, had he been a chattel slave. That 
slaveholders do not need to be moved by the 
pleadings of an apostle to induce them to re- 
ceive returned fusjitives, we have sufficient 
proof in the enactment of the fugitive slave law 
of 1850, in these United States, and in the 
forcible attempts that have been made to ex- 
ecute it, which have rocked the nation to its 
centre. These facts show that Onesimus 
could not have been a chattel slave, but must 
have sustained some relation to, or held some 
positioner office in the family of Philemon, 
which was both respectable and advantage- 
ous to himself, the trust of which he had be- 
trayed, and from which he had wrongfully 
departed ; hence Paul entreated Philemon to 
receive him back. No argument could be 
necessary to pursuade a slaveholder to receive 
back a returned slave. 

2. The offer of Paul to assume the pecuni- 
ary responsibilities of Onesimus to Philemon, 
proves that the former was not a chattel slave. 
His words arc, "If he hath wronged thee, or 
oweth thee ought, put that on mine account. 
I. Paul, have written it with mine own hand. 



171 THK iniUK NO KKKLGK 1 Mil SLAVLIIV. 

1 will repay it." Verse 18, 19. The thing 
supposed liere, is utterly impossible in the 
case of a chattel slave. A slave cannot owe. 
The assumed right of property in a man, so 
swallows up every right, power and interest 
that can attach to the party thus held as pro- 
perty, that he must be incapable of owinc 
Power and obligation must be co-ordinate, 
and cotemporaneous, hence, the assumption 
of a debt or an obligation to pay, expressed 
by the term, owe, implies a power to act, to 
accumulate, to own, and to transter for one's 
self and own benefit, which cannot be true of a 
chattel slave, or he who is the property of an- 
other, fet. Paul, therefore, by assuming that 
Onesimus might owe Philemon, as clearly 
and positively assumed that he was not his 
chattel slave. This one consideration is of 
itself sufiicient to settle tliis controversy. 
There are other reasons which might be ren- 
dered in proof that Onesimus was not a slave, 
but I will not urge them, but pass to take an- 
other and final view of this epistle. 

111. If it were admitted that Onesimus was 
a lawful chattel slave, when he ran away, it 
would be clear from the language of the 
epistle, that Paul did not send him back as a 
slave, but conniuinded his . freedom to be 
given him. To contend that he was a slave, 
must prove fatal to the right of slavery, since 
Paul clearly and unequivocally ordered his 
emancipation upon the supposition that he 
was a slave. 

The apostle speciHos to Philemon too plain- 
ly how he was to receive Onesimu.-. to i>r 
jJiisunder.^tood. and in .-uch tcrtii> a^ to loi 



THE BiKLE NO IJL'VUUK FuK SLAVERY. lT5 

S3ver exclude chattel slaTcry trum the rela- 
tion. 

1. He was to receive liiiii *■ not now as a 
s^ervant, but above a servant.'^ Suppose then 
that he was a slave, and thut tlie word hero 
used, doulos, means slave, and the whole 
clause will read thus : ''Perhaps he therefore 
departed for a season, that thou shouldest re- 
ceive him for ever ; not now as a slave hvit 
above a slaved' Is not tMs making an end of 
all slavery in the case. It certainly is, unless 
it can be proved that a man can ^be a slave, 
and above a slave at the same time, which 
strikes me as impossible, unless a man can 
get above himself. Paul cannot have sent 
Kim back as a slave, and Philemon cannot 
have received him as a slave, unless a man 
'ean be received as a slave, and not be receiv- 
-ed as a slave at the same time ; for the words 
are, "that thou shouldst receive him, not now 
;as a slave." Such is .the fatal consequence 
to slavery if it be admitted that Onesimus 
was a slave, and if we, accordingly, render 
the word doulos slave. 

2. Paul instructed Philemon to receive 
Onesimus as he would receive him. His words 
are, "If thou count me therefore a partner, 
receive him as my self.'' Verse 17. Here it 
■is plain that Philemon was exhorted to re- 
ceive Onesimus as he would have received 
Paul himself. Then must he have received 
him as an equal, as a Christian brother, as a 
fellow laborer, and if so, he could not receive 
■him or regard him as his slave. It is not 
possible that ho should receive him a? a fngi- 
Tjrp slav*-: rctnrnrrl. and at tlie .^amf linu" re- 



17G THK Bini.K NO RKFLGf; FOR SI.AV£Rr. 

eeivc him as he would have received Paul, 
The expression, "if tliou count me a partner," 
places Onesimiis on a perfect Christian level 
Tvilh Philemon. Paul here places himself be- 
fore Philemon as his partner, and then re- 
quires him to receive Onesinuis as himself. 
The Greek word koinonoshare rendered part- 
ner, occurs ten times, in the Testament, and 
is translated as follows : 

It is translated partners three times, twice 
besides this text. James and John are said 
to have been partners with Peter in the fish- 
ing business. Luke v. 10. Paul declares 
tliat Titus is his, part7ier and fellow laborer. 
2 Cor. viii. 23. 

It is rendered partaker five times. Matt. 
xxiii. 30 ; 1 Cor. x. 18 ; 2 Cor. i, 7 ^ 1 Peter 
V. 1 ; 2 Peter i. 4. 

It is translated fcllowslii}) once. 1 Cor. x. 
20. Once it is rendered companions, Heb. x. 
38. 

In every case in which the word is used, it 
implies equality in a sense which renders it 
impossible to conceive of a slaveholder and 
his chattel slave as partners, yet this is tho- 
relation wliich Paul marked out for Philemon 
and Oncsimus. 

3. With the above agrees the few facts 
known of Oncsimus. The subscription to 
the epistle to the Colossians reads thus,. 
"Written from lloine to the Colossians, by 
Tycliicus and Onesimus." From this it ap- 
pears that the same person was one of tlio 
>)?arcrs of that important letter. Tliis is 
confirmed in Cliap. iv. 7-*^ Mere liolli are 
vsaid to i»o sent l>v Paul. Of Oncsimus it is 



ThlK BIBLE NU KKFLGE FOK iSLAVEKV. HT 

said, "With Oiiesimus a faithful and beloved 
brother who is one of you." The most ob- 
vious sense is that Onesimus was a member 
of the Church at Colosse. He could not have 
been so when sent with the letter to Phile- 
mon. He must then, after his reconciliation 
to Philemon through Paul's intervention, soon 
have returned to Rome, and been sent as a 
messenger to the Colossian Church. This 
proves clear enough that he was not a chattel 
slave, and here I rest my argument on this 
epistle. 

PAUL TO TITUS DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY. 

''Exhort servants to be obedient unto their 
own masters, and to please them well in all 
things ; not answering again ; not purloining, 
but shewing all good fidelity ; that they may 
adorn the "doctrine of God our Saviour in 
all things/' Titus ii. 9, 10. 

But little need be said on this text, after 
what hai'^ preceded, for nearly every point has 
been treated, and it appears only necessary to 
remark that not a word is said which is not 
applicable to more or less persons in every 
community, where slavery has no existence, 
and of course, it cannot prove the existence 
of slavery. 

It will be observed that in the ninth verse 
the translators have added four words not 
found in the original. They are, " exhort," 
"and," " them" and " things." Leaving these 
words out, the verse reads, " Servants to be 
obedient unto their own masters,to please well 
in all ; not answering again." This might all 



178 TIIK Him.F. No HKFIGI:: Foil SLAVKKY, 

be said to hired laborers as has been sliown in 
remarks already made upon other texts. 

But the lani!,-uage of the tenth verse clearly 
implies a state of things very dillerent from 
slavery. 

"Not purloining." This is much more ap- 
plicable to a free agent with his own proper- 
ty interests, Avho has charge of another man's 
business and funds, than it is to a slave, who 
can have nothing which he can call his own, 
and whose crime w^ould be established, if 
aught was found in his possession. The 
Greek word occurs in but one other place, 
Acts V. 1, 2, where it is found twice in the 
same connection, and is rendered, " keep 
back," and "kept back.'' The sense is plain ; 
in the connection in which it is applied to 
servants, it forbids the appropriating of the 
property of their masters to their own use, 
which is a crime to Avhich free hired agents 
are more exposed than slaves. 

Tiie matter is made still more clear by the 
antithesis, "Not purloining, but showing all 
good iidelity." The word fidelity is not a 
true rendering of the original, it should be 
faith. Fidelity implies a simple discharge 
of obligations on the part of any accountable 
agent, but "good faith," as it ought to read, 
implies a mutual treaty, covenant or trust 
reposed. "Good faith" is kept l)et\vccn two 
parties, and implies mutually and voluntarily 
assumed obligations, and mutual trust repos- 
ed. That the word here used should be ren- 
dered faith, is very clear from the fact that 
it occurs two hundred and lifty-nine times in 
the New Testament, and is rendered faith in 



THE BIBLt: NO RKFUGE FOR SLAVKK 179 

every case except two. Acts xvii. 81, it is 
rendered ''assurance/' and in tins place, it is 
rendered "fidelity." In the other 257 cases 
at is translated faith. Calling it faith, the 
clause should read thus: "Not purloining, but 
showing all good faith." There is no proof 
of slavery in this, for "good faith implies 
voluntarily assumed obligations, and mutual 
trust in each other. It implies the very re- 
lation that subsists between the employer and 
employed, where both parties are free. 

PETER DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY. 

"Servants, be subject to your masters witli 
?ill fear ; not only to the good and gentle, but 
also to the froward. For this is thank-wor- 
thy, if a man for conscience toward God en- 
dure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what 
glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your 
faults, ye shall take it patiently ? but if, when 
ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it pa- 
tiently, this is acceptable with God. For 
even hereunto were ye called : because Christ 
also suffered for us, leaving us an example, 
that ye should follow his steps." 1 Peter ii. 
18-21. 

We here meet with a new word rendered 
servant, not found in any of the preceding 
texts. It is oiketai, and its first and literal 
meaning is, "an inmate of one's house." It is 
derived from oikos, a house, and hence an in- 
mate of one's house, a household servant. 
The words of the apostle apply to such ser- 
vants as were employed as domestics, ser- 
vants, whose business was in the house= It 



180 TllK IJIHI,}^ NO i:k;i-nA;K ion aLA'\hKi' 

does not prove tliat ihey "svorc slaves, but 
only that they served in the house, whether 
bond or free. 

^lost of the terms have been explained in 
remarks made npon other texts. The ex- 
pression, "subject with fear," has been ex- 
plained sufficiently, in remarks ollcrcd upon 
Eph. vi. 5, where the expression "fear aiul 
trembling" occurs. 

An examination of what is peculiar to this 
text, will show that it does not prove the ex- 
istence of slavery, and that it docs not justify 
it upon the supposition that it did exist. No 
directions are given to masters, and hence it 
is fair to suppose the class of persons referred 
to, were not members of the Church. Some 
of them we know were not, for they are re- 
presented as "froward," and as infiictino- 
j^'rief upon their servants, "conscience toward 
God." Such persons were not Christians, 
and if they held slaves, it would not i)rove it 
to be right. But sc-mc arc represented a.-- 
"good and gentle," and were not they mem- 
hers of the Church and Christians ? There 
is no proof that they were. TIk) Greek word 
agathos, good, does not mean a Christian, nor 
goodness in a high mor?l sense. It is applied 
to all kinds of nouns, and means only that 
the noun is good in its kind, as "good gifts, 
good tree, good things, good treasure, good 
i'ruits, good works, good days, good ground.'^ 
Jn this text it (pialilles masters, understood,- 
and good masters are not necessarily Chris- 
tians, or mendjers of the church. I\ or does 
the word " gentle " imply that they were 
(,'hristiuns. I'he (Jrcek word cpiiikcis, inaxua 



THE BIBLK .NU UEl LGt: iOli ^LAVKUV. Ibl 

not only gentle, but mild, patient, moderate. 
It occurs live times in the New Testament. 
Once it is translated "moderation ;" (Phil, 
iv. 5 ;) once it is rendered "patient ;" (2 Tim. 
iii. 3 ;) and three times it is rendered gentle. 
These three cases are Titus iii. 2, and James 
iii. 17 and 1 Peter ii. 18. There is then no 
proof that the masters referred to were mem- 
bers of the Church, but evidence that they 
were not. If they were slaveholders, there- 
fore, it is no proof that slavery is right. If 
we look at the directions given to the ser- 
vants, they neither prove the existence of 
slavery, nor yet that it is right, if it did ex- 
ist. 

The only point involved in these instruc- 
tions, which has not been sufficiently met, is 
the fact implied that the servants were liable 
to be buffeted. This word, kokwhizo, buffet, 
more properly means to box the ears with 
the hand, but may denote beating of any kind. 
The fact that they were liable to be beaten 
does not prove that they were slaves, for the 
following reasons : 

1. Beating was a common punishment in- 
flicted for minor offenses, upon free persons 
as well as upon slaves. That custom has 
come down to our own times, and though it 
is now nearly abolished, persons are still 
punished at the whipping post for minor of- 
fenses in some of these States. 

2. Christians generally were liable to be 
buffeted at that time, and even the apostles 
themselves were baffeted. Paul says, "Even 
unto this present hour, we both hunger and 
thirst, and arc naked and arc buffeted. ' 



182 THK niBLE \0 RKFrcK H)K Sl.AVKIlY. 

I Cor. iv. 2. At a time when all Cliristian?, 
and especially ministers were liable to be 
buffeted, the fact that servants were liable to 
be buffeted, cannot prove thai they were 
slaves. 

3. The advice of the apostle has often been 
applicable, and called for, in our day, where 
no slavery existed. Children and appren- 
tices have often been buffeted in the free 
States of this free country, on account of their 
reli«2rion, not only by infidels, butl)y members 
of churches, because, their children persisted 
in attending the meetings of a different de- 
nomination from the one they preferred. I 
know a young lady who was most severely 
buffeted by her father for attending a meeting 
contrary to his orders, he being a member of 
another church. I am well aquainted with a 
minister of the gospel, who, when a youth, was 
buffeted and dragged out of the lioiise, by the 
hair of his head, by his own father, because he 
persisted in attending the meetings of a dif- 
ferent denomination from the one the father 
preferred. If such things can occur in a 
Christian community, it must be plain that 
the fact that servants were liable to be buffet- 
ed among heathen, cannot prove that they 
were slaves. 

But allowing that tliey were slaves, there 
is not the slightest proof that slavery is right. 
The apostle does not endorse the buffeting in 
any case, not even where it is inflicted for 
wrong doing. The buffeting referred to is 
of two kinds, that which is inflicted on ac- 
count of the wrong doincr of the servants, and 



THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 183 

that which is inflicted on account of their 
well doing, or without their fault. 

Suppose than slaves do wrong, and are 
buffeted for it, still the buffeting may be as 
wrong as the conduct for which it is inflicted. 
A wrong act may be wrongfully punished. 
The directions of our Saviour, in relation to 
smiting and resisting evil, must settle the 
question that no Christian can be justified in 
smiting a fellow Christian , the buffeting 
therefore must be wrong though provoked 
by the wrong doing of the servant. The 
liability therefore of slaves to be buffeted, if 
slaves they were, or the fact that they were 
buffeted, cannot prove that slavery is right. 
The fact that Peter cautioned them against 
provoking the wrath of their wicked heathen 
masters, nor yet the fact that he gave them 
lo understand that there would be no special 
virtue in bearing the buffeting patiently, af- 
ter having provoked it by bad conduct, can- 
not be construed into a justification of slave- 
ry nor even of the buffeting. 
" But they were liable to be buffeted when 
they did. well, and this proves that it was 
wicked men and a wrong state of things of 
which the apostle was treating, and no 
justification for slavery, or anything else can 
be inferred from the conduct of such men. 
This further appears from tlie fact that Peter 
appeals to the suffering of Christ as an ex- 
ample, which was wrongfully inflicted. Al- 
lowing them to have been slaves, the fact 
that the apostle exhorts them not to provoke 
punishment, and to bear it patiently when 
they do well and yet are buffeted, appealing 



184 Tiiii: iniiLK no liKtu.K luu .si-avki;y. 

to the sufleriiigri of Chris*, to enlorcc \us cx- 
'lortation, no more proves that they were 
rightfully held as slaves, than the fact that 
Christ suflercd patiently, proves that his suf- 
ferings were rightfully iniiicted. 

1 have now done, for though I have not 
examined every text that some may be dis- 
posed to urge in support of slavery, I have 
examined all the most important ones, so that, 
if those I have examined do not prove the 
rightful existence of slavery, it cannot be pre- 
tended that there arc .other texts that will 
prove the point without ihem. In the argu- 
ment 1 have kept two points in view, namely, 
the texts relied upon to support slavery, do 
not prove that it ever existed in the Church, 
and that. If it did exist, they do not prove it 
is right. Here I rest, and will close my ar- 
gument with the words with which a more 
brilliant writer commenced his. 

''The spirit of slavery never seeks shelter 
in the Bible of its own accord. It grasps 
tlic horns of tlic altar only in desperation — 
rushing from the avenger's arm. Like other 
unclean spirits, it hateth the light, nei- 
ther Cometh to the light, lest its deeds 
should be reproved. Goaded to Phrenzy in 
its conflicts Avith conscience and common 
sense, denied all (piarter, and hunted from 
every covert, it vaults over the sacred en- 
closure, and courses up and down the Bible 
seeking rest and tinding none. The law of 
love, glowing on every i)age. Hashes around 
it an omnipresent anguish and de3})air. It 
shrinks from the hated light, and howls under 
the consuming touch, as demons (juailcd ])c- 



THE BIBLE SO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 185 

fore the Son of God, and shrieked, 'Torment 
us not.' * * * Its asylum is its sepulchre ; 
its city of refuge the city of destruction. Tt 
flies from light into the sun ; from heat into 
devouring fire ; and from the voice of God 
into the Thickest of his thunders." 



HD-23S 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

SECTION I. 

Slavery a sia against God. Page 3. 

Proved from man's relation to God, ^• 

Proved from duties required of all men 7. 

Proved from the marriage relation, 12. 

Proved from the relation of parents and children, 20- 

Proved from its identity with man-stealing, 25 . 

Proved from its being traflic in human beings, 20. 

Proved from its being involuntary servitude, 32. 

Proved from its being labor without wages, 3fl. 

Proved from its identity with oppression, 39. 

SECTION II. 

The Old Testament, no rei'uge for Slavery ■!'«>• 

The curse of Canaan was not Slavery, 62. 

The Patriarchs were not Slaveholders, 59. 

The Jewish polity was not a sl.iveholding polity, 68. 

SECTION III. 

The New Testament, no refuge for Slavery, 107. 

The several terms employed examined, 108. 

Christ did not teach or justify Slavery 113. 

Paul to the Corinthians did not justify Slavery, 118. 

Paul to the Ephesians did not justify Slavery, 127. 

Paul to the Collossians did not justify Slavery, 146. 

Paul to Philemon— Onesimus not a Slave, ■. 164' 

Paul to Titus did not justify Slavery 177, 

Peter did not justify Slavery, 179. 



^^ 



'X 



^ 



"o 







> « 

^ " * " 











7 



.^'•'-^. 




.^^ 



^\ . -\ 










.0 



^ . €r^"^ 













DOBBS BROS. ^</JCm^* A.^ "^ 

LIBRARY BINDINO • ^ ^ •* V^ "^ 

OCT 79^ .^^ -^^^ ^^ 

.STAUGUSTINE ^^ - ^^^^'^ '^^j. << 
^r 32084 * "^^i^ 



